. "5 HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE - INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE." Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1992.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
RESPONSIBLE SCIENCE: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process
available to comment with knowledge and credibility on how working scientists, research institutions, and government agencies are progressing at meeting the common objective of ensuring integrity in the research process and responding vigorously and fairly to alleged misconduct. An independent organization could perform this important function if constituted and operated in an appropriate way. Further discussion and pertinent details are given in Chapter 7 .
1. See, for example, the discussion regarding the allegations against Franz Moewus as presented in Sapp (1990).
2. The survey consisted of a stratified random sample of 30 institutions with 100 or more grants, 31 with 10 to 99 grants, inclusive, and 28 institutions with fewer than 10 grants.
3. See Department of Health and Human Services (1989a). See also National Science Foundation (1987, 1991b).
4. See, for example, the report of a conference on misconduct in science sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Bar Association, the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists and the DHHS's Office of Scientific Integrity Review (AAAS, 1991b).
5. The NSF has taken the position that although an inquiry can produce a finding of no misconduct, an investigation is necessary to establish misconduct. Personal communication, OIG, NSF, February 1, 1991.
6. See Department of Health and Human Services (1991a).
7. See, for example, the “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the NSF's OIG on August 16, 1991.
8. See Greene et al. (1985). The survey was sent to 747 institutions, and 493 (66 percent) responded.
9. See Department of Health and Human Services (1991b). Also, National Science Foundation (1990b, 1991a).
10. Examples of misconduct policies and procedures from the institutions discussed in this section are included in Volume II of this report.
11. See, for example, the discussion in the DHHS's OIG report (DHHS, 1989d), which notes that although all “large grantee institutions considered [misconduct] investigations their responsibility, only 54 percent of the small institutions shared this view, and most of these institutions would support a more active NIH role in investigating allegations” (p. 11).
12. For a full discussion of some procedural complexities involved in academic investigations of misconduct-in-science allegations, see the proceedings of a series of workshops sponsored by the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (AAAS-ABA, 1989).
13. See the statement by Rep. John Dingell in U.S. Congress (1989b): “The apparent unwillingness on the part of the scientific community to deal promptly and effectively with allegations of misconduct is unfair to both the accuser and to the accused” (p. 1). See also Weiss (1991b) and the commentary in Dong (1991).
14. For an informative discussion, see Andersen (1988).
15. See, for example, Department of Health and Human Services (1991a).
16. Public Law 100-504 (102 Stat. 2515 ) established Offices of Inspector General in a number of departments and smaller agencies, including NSF. In compliance