universities in conducting misconduct-in-science inquiries and investigations has not been comprehensively analyzed. Thus information about the broad range of experience of diverse institutions in handling allegations of misconduct in science is often derived from anecdotes and journalistic accounts describing the experiences of universities and individual participants in specific cases.
Research institutions have different methods for structuring an inquiry to determine whether an allegation of misconduct in science has substance. 10 Some institutions (such as Harvard Medical School) rely on existing faculty conduct committees to handle misconduct inquiries and investigations, if necessary. Others (such as The University of Chicago) have established a standing committee on academic fraud to oversee the university 's handling of misconduct cases. Some universities (such as the University of California, San Diego) rely on administrative officials to appoint an investigator or faculty panel to conduct a preliminary inquiry and subsequent investigation, if necessary.
When an initial allegation of misconduct has been made, an administrative official or designated faculty member usually conducts a confidential inquiry in response to the allegation. The official may consult with selected faculty members or co-workers to determine the nature of the suspected offense, and, in some cases, the individual accused of misconduct may not be informed that an allegation has been made. The inquiry may be closed by the preparation of a brief file memorandum —which may be provided to the complainant for comment—that either states the reasons that no further investigation was judged to be necessary or recommends that an investigation be initiated.
If an investigation is recommended, the individual accused of misconduct and the appropriate government research sponsor are informed of the nature of the allegations. According to an OSIR analysis, research institutions generally establish a panel of scientific experts, usually numbering three to eight members, to conduct an investigation, review evidence, and interview witnesses and relevant parties (DHHS, 1991b). For the most part, such a panel is composed of persons from the institution, although they are usually not from the department or research center of the subject of the investigation. In a few cases, institutions have used panel members from other