SCIENCE science.org 4 MARCH 2022 • VOL 375 ISSUE 6584 981the basis of experts’ inputs. This seemingly
weak countermeasure may be practical
when dealing with the alarming stock of
past misconducts and rising retractions of
Chinese articles, which could be an artifact
of better global oversight or a growing cau-
tion toward Chinese contributed knowl-
edge production evidenced by shorter
retraction time ( 6 , 7 ).
Strengthening gatekeeping
As the engine of basic research and stew-
ardship of public funds, the quality of peer
review, anonymous correspondence review,
or panel review of grant applications plays
a critical role in selection excellence and
upholding research integrity. Hometown-
based favoritism, rent-seeking, and other
nonmerit factors are non-negligible in the
Chinese science system ( 8 – 10 ). The RCC
(responsibility, credibility, contribution)
principle has been recently proposed and
trialed by the NSFC ( 11 ). However, to be
effective in gatekeeping misbehavior, RCC
has to be applied in tandem with fair artifi-
cial intelligence algorithms to assist grant
proposal distribution to a sufficient num-
ber of trustworthy and qualified experts.
Proper incentivizing
Detecting, disclosing, and sanctioning so-
cially deviant behavior can be particularly
difficult in Asian cultures that value col-
lectivism and organizational loyalty. To re-
coup public money misused on fraudulent
research, proper incentives need to be ad-
opted for misconduct whistleblowers, ex-
pert panels of misconduct investigations,
punitive enforcers, and other stakeholders
in grant-relevant research activities. Some
countries have adopted an appropriate di-
vision of recovered grants [for example, in
the US case of Thomas vs. Duke University,
t h e c o u r t d e c i d e d t h e a m o u n t o f m o n e y t h a t
Duke is to pay back to the federal govern-
ment (recovered grant) given its violation
of the False Claims Act]. In China, people
are rewarded for whistleblowing in some
fields such as environmental protection,
food and drug safety, and so on. The nega-
tive consequences of money for publica-
tion may be also applicable to misconduct
whistleblowers. Therefore, compensation
en masse can be applicable in the science
grant system in the future, letting the valid
whistleblowers reap the benefits of recov-
ered grants to compensate the risk of re-
taliation for revealing grant-related frauds.
Funding agencies must reward whistle-
blowers wisely and vigilantly to avoid
perverse incentives or bounties that risk
glaring instances of alleged misconduct in
the pursuit of fortune. Proper incentives
should be extended to research managers
and supporting staff for outstanding work
in research integrity cultivation.Enhancing transparency
Research funded by public money should
be available to scientific peers and the pub-
lic. Chinese funding agencies have made
noticeable improvements in transparency
aspects, such as NSFC publicizing abstracts
of funded proposals and funded research
outputs and the National Office for Philoso-
phy and Social Sciences (NOPSS) publish-
ing selected funded research output. NSFC,
NOPSS, and more recently NHC regularly
disclose grant debarments and investiga-
tion results.
More can be done. To reduce funding
fragmentation and duplicate awards across
different agencies ( 12 ), the long-called-for
integrated funding platform can be ex-
tended beyond MOST with awarded proj-
ects, research data, and findings of public
funded research accessible to the scientific
community. The decision by multiple agen-
cies to no longer publicize the names of
awardees of prestigious talent programs
has raised some concerns within and be-
yond national borders. More transparency
not only reduces reinventing the wheel in
public funding and encourages competi-
tive ideas ( 13 ) but also alleviates the cost of
oversight and deters potential misconduct.Extending integrity education and training
It has been increasingly accepted in the Chi-
nese scientific community that integrity ed-
ucation and training outweigh misconduct
sanctioning when factoring in effectiveness,
efficiency, and equity into consideration.
Such education and training need to be
more extensive and specialized in the sci-
ence grant system.
The Matthew effect of research re-
sources (“the rich get richer”) combined
with the inevitable rise of team science and
division of labor calls for team-oriented
rather than individual-oriented ethics and
integrity training and education ( 14 ). Such
collaborative education and training should
be extended not only to PIs who manage
large laboratories and contribute to sub-
stantial numbers of publications but also
to earlier career researchers, data analysts,
and supporting technicians who work in
large research teams to be aware of data
cross-checking and collaborators’ knowl-
edge validation.
In addition, the Chinese science grant
system needs to tailor research ethics and
academic integrity education considering
the differences between natural sciences
and social sciences; the latter has been long
sidelined in research integrity cultivation.
In the evidence-based or evidence-informedpolicy-making era, the quality and integrity
of social science studies impacts are the
same as if not greater than the natural sci-
ences. Extensive and specialized education
modules can be set as mandatory before
researchers submit grant applications or
awardees sign a contract, as well as before
midterm assessments for all team members.AGENDA FOR TOMORROW
Research integrity is the cornerstone of the
science, technology, and innovation system.
The Chinese science grant system alone
is insufficient to reduce funding-relevant
research fraud. In tandem with carefully
optimistic and patient objectives, reinforc-
ing research integrity must be advanced in
alignment with China’s ongoing reform of
science and technology evaluation. It must
be systematic and involve orchestrated ef-
forts of different stakeholders across the
whole spectrum of scientific exploration,
within and beyond national boundaries. For
example, Chinese funding agencies can ini-
tiate and engage with other stakeholders to
participate in and organize global academic
conferences and practitioner workshops
such as the World Conferences of Research
Integrity, Asian and Pacific Rim Research
Integrity Network, and so on to share best
practices ( 15 ). Through people-to-people
and agency-to-agency exchanges such as
the Integrity Ambassador Program, Chinese
funding agencies can strengthen their col-
laboration with their international counter-
parts, sending out and inviting in experts
to learn from each other to foster research
integrity and promote responsible and inno-
vative research. jREFERENCES AND NOTES- National Science Board, National Science Foundation,
Science and Engineering Indicators 2020: The State of
U.S. Science and Engineering; https://ncses.nsf.gov/
pubs/nsb20201. - L. Tang, Nature 575 , 589 (2019).
- E. A. Fong et al., J. Law Med. Ethics 48 , 331 (2020).
- NSFC, NSFC Annual Reports (accessed 2 October
2021); http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/csc/20345/20290/index.
html. - C. Hood, O. James, B. G. Peters, C. Scott, Eds., Controlling
Modern Government: Variety, Commonality and Change
(Edward Elgar Press, 2004). - J. Brainard, Science 362 , 390 (2018).
- L. Tang et al., Sci. Eng. Ethics 26 , 1681 (2020).
- Y. Xie, Science 355 , 1022 (2017).
- R. Fisman et al., Polit. Econ. 126 , 1134 (2018).
- Y. Shi, Y. Rao, Science 329 , 1128 (2010).
- G. Chen et al., Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci 36 , 1427 (2021).
- Y. Sun, C. Cao, Science 345 , 1006 (2014).
- S. Feigenbaum, D. M. Levy, Rationality Soc. 8 , 261 (1996).
- J. Walsh et al., Res. Policy 48 , 444 (2019).
- D. Moher et al., PLOS Biol. 18 , e3000737 (2020).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research is partially funded by the Ministry of Education
(17YJAZH075) and the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (L2024009). I thank the four anonymous reviewers for
their insightful comments. The views expressed here are those
of the author and do not reflect the positions of the funders.
10.1126/science.abm7992