firmed or suspected misconduct in science and also analyzed the status of individuals who disclosed these incidents (Table 4.4 and Table 4.5). Their analyses indicate that existing channels within the peer review process and research institutions do provide information about misconduct in science. Initial reports were often made by supervisors, collaborators, or subordinates who were in direct contact with the individual suspected of misconduct. These findings contradict opinions that checks such as peer review, replication of research, and journal reviews do not help identify instances of misconduct.

However, the panel notes that supervisors, colleagues, and subordinate personnel may report misconduct in science at their peril. The honesty of individuals who hold positions of respect or prestige cannot be easily questioned. It can be particularly deleterious for junior or temporary personnel to make allegations of misconduct by their superiors. Students, research fellows, and technicians can jeopardize current positions, imperil progress on their research projects, and sacrifice future recommendations from their research supervisors by making allegations of misconduct by their co-workers.

One provocative study of university officers' experience with misconduct in science is a 1988 survey of 392 deans of graduate studies from institutions affiliated with the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS).^{11 12} The survey was conducted with support from NSF and the American