and regularized to encourage responsible research behaviors and to discourage questionable practices.
These questionable practices might include, for example, not giving colleagues access to data or research materials; failing to retain, for a reasonable period, data or research materials that support reported findings; designating as an author one who has made no significant contribution to a paper, as well as failing to acknowledge as an author an individual who has made a significant contribution to the work reported in a paper; or exploiting graduate students.
Recognizing that specific approaches may have important limitations, the panel nevertheless concludes that it is essential for scientists and research institutions to exercise a stronger role in providing an environment that encourages responsible research practices and also discourages misconduct in science.
In considering different approaches to dealing with questionable research practices, the panel concluded that questionable practices are best discouraged through (1) the effective use of peer review and the system of appointments, evaluations, and other rewards in the research environment and (2) educational programs that emphasize responsible behavior in the research environment. Such approaches build on the strengths of self-regulation, rely on those who are most knowledgeable about the intricacies of the scientific research process to maintain the quality of the research environment, and preserve the diverse disciplinary traditions that foster integrity in the research process. By encouraging the development of educational programs that emphasize responsible research behavior, the panel seeks to foster more deliberate and informed communication, discussion, criticism, and reflection of the basic values that guide scientific practices and judgments.
The role of government should be confined to one of providing oversight of institutional efforts to handle and prevent episodes of misconduct in science. Government should not seek to regulate questionable research practices.
1. See, for example, the report of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Committee on Academic Responsibility included in Volume II of this report.
2. See, for example, Section 50.105 of the final PHS rule on responsibilities for dealing with possible misconduct (DHHS, 1989a, p. 32451):
Institutions shall foster a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research and that deals forthrightly with possible misconduct associated with research for which PHS funds have been provided or requested. An institution's failure to comply with its assurance and the requirements of this