Mr Suter, you’re the go-to person for suspected cases of scientific misconduct, such as the falsification of data. What do your duties involve?
I offer advice and referee research disputes. Someone can report an alleged case of misconduct without immediately having to take legal action, for instance.

Where does scientific misconduct begin?
That’s often very difficult to pinpoint. We’re talking about basic ethical decisions that sometimes spring from extremely subtle cases. If someone removes an outlier from a series of measurements without good cause, for instance, technically that’s already a falsification.

What are typical disputes?

Naming authors in publications, for example. According to the guidelines, everyone who makes a substantial contribution to the project is entitled to authorship. But what does substantial mean? If a professor acquires the money, that’s clearly not enough. But maybe he also came up with the idea for the project. Does that qualify for authorship? Questions like these are far from trivial.

The criteria for authorship are clearly set forth in the “Guidelines for Research Integrity”. Anyone who plans, implements, supervises or assesses the research project personally, co-writes the manuscript and ultimately approves the final version is entitled to co-authorship.

Those are stringent guidelines that are always to be understood in context. Someone who only provides primary data without analysing it him or herself doesn’t belong on a publication. If someone analyses and interprets data, however, and this interpretation is included in a paper, the person in question can definitely be a co-author.

How many inquiries have you dealt with so far?
I inherited one case from my predecessor and have had four more inquiries since the beginning of July. One of them is still being processed; the other three have been resolved. The inquiries came from professors, doctoral students and post-docs.

What did they come to you for?
Issues concerning authorship, a nomination for a science prize or to ask what the boss is entitled to stipulate in a scientific project, for instance. In most cases, the problem was a breakdown in communications. Sometimes employees feel reluctant to go to their superiors.

Can someone in a position of trust help people to overcome their inhibitions about reporting violations of the regulations?

I think so. You have to be able to talk about problems without being afraid. The conversations I have are confidential and my reports to the Executive Board are anonymised since the informant must remain protected.

If you learn of a violation, are you 100% obligated to inform the Executive Board?

If it’s obvious that rules of integrity have been broken, I have to report it to the Board. However, if it’s a dispute that can be resolved through mediation, that isn’t necessary.

Are all the researchers at ETH Zurich aware of the rules?

The guidelines were given to everyone involved in research at ETH Zurich. They’re also on the Internet – on the contact person’s website, for instance. I can’t imagine anyone not knowing them.

Just how stringent are they?

They are firm rules, but sometimes they are open to interpretation. They can’t predetermine every single case.

In September 2009 Peter Chen stepped down as Vice-President of Research and Corporate Relations in response to a case of data manipulation that occurred in his group between 1999 and 2000. Was there talk of revising the guidelines in the wake of this turn of events?

Not that I know of. I think everyone agreed that they are fine as they are now and that we should stick to them.

Do you think it would be reasonable to have all researchers at ETH Zurich sign the guidelines?

Yes, to make sure everyone has taken note of them.

Can falsifications be prevented?

The entire system is based on trust. It is impossible to monitor every step that every employee takes. Consequently, personal responsibility on the part of the individual plays a key role. If I’m alone on the road at night and come to a red light, I ask myself the question: do I stop or drive on? I have to admit that I’ve opted for the latter. I’m sure that’s a very human response. But only someone who deems scientific correctness sacred should be conducting research.

Yet it would seem that there are still scientists who don’t uphold this. What drives them to fake data?

Maybe these people are convinced that the data must be as they expect, but they just can’t manage to measure it. In most cases, the people are under enormous internal pressure.

Is this pressure also caused by the research system?

Partly, yes. But that’s nothing new. Some of the greatest scientists, such as Lamarck or Galileo, most probably have cheated a little. A scientist makes huge demands on himself. He wants to create something which lasts. If he doesn’t, he doesn’t want to feel like a failure. But I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with the science system.

In the world of research, there is the expression “publish or perish”. Many researchers sense the pressure to publish like a millstone around their necks.

It’s not as great as you might think. There are two professors at ETH Zurich, for instance, who worked on a problem for nearly ten years and published next to nothing, only to publish several groundbreaking papers in one fell swoop. You can survive longer dry spells, just not at the beginning of the path towards becoming a professor. Today, it’s not so much the number of publications that counts as the quality.

About Ulrich W. Suter:

Ulrich W. Suter was appointed the new contact person for research ethics by ETH Zurich’s Executive Board. On 1 July 2010 he took over from his predecessor, Werner Bächtold, who had held the position since 2007. Suter was a professor of macromolecular chemistry at ETH Zurich’s Institute of Polymers from 1988 until he retired in 2008. He was also Vice-President of Research and Corporate Relations at ETH Zurich from 2001 to 2005.