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
to “material failure to comply with federal requirements that uniquely relate to the conduct of research.” This clause was eliminated in the misconduct definition adopted in the final rule (DHHS, 1989a) to avoid duplicate reporting of violations of research regulations involving animal and human subjects, since these areas are covered by existing regulations and policies.
9. In the commentary accompanying its final rule, NSF (1987) noted that several letters on the proposed rule had commented that the proposed definition was too vague or overreaching. The NSF's 1987 definition originally included two clauses in addition to those in the PHS misconduct definition: “material failure to comply with federal requirements for protection of researchers, human subjects, or the public or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals” and “failure to meet other material legal requirements governing research” (NSF, 1987, p. 24468). These categories were removed in 1991 when the regulations were amended.
10. In a “Dear Colleague Letter on Misconduct” issued on August 16, 1991, the NSF's OIG stated, “The definition is not intended to elevate ordinary disputes in research to the level of misconduct and does not contemplate that NSF will act as an arbitrator of mere personality clashes or technical disputes between researchers.”
11. K. Louis, J. Swazey, and M. Anderson, University Policies and Ethical Issues inResearch and Graduate Education: Results of a Survey of GraduateSchool Deans, preliminary report (Bar Harbor, Me.: Acadia Institute, November 1988). The survey was published as Swazey et al. (1989).
12. It should be noted that the survey instrument used by the Acadia Institute did not define “research misconduct,” but instead left that term open to the interpretation of the respondents. In some parts of the survey, “plagiarism” was distinguished from “research misconduct.”
13. Sigma Xi (1989), as summarized in NSF (1990d), pp. 4-5.
14. Cited in Woolf (1988a), p. 71. She quotes an editorial by Koshland (1987) for the first figure and a survey by St. James-Roberts (1976b) for the latter.
15. See Tangney (1987) and Davis (1989). See also St. James-Roberts (1976a). The reader survey reported in St. James-Roberts (1976b) received 204 questionnaire replies. Ninety-two percent of the respondents reported direct or indirect experience with “intentional bias” in research findings. The source of knowledge of bias was primarily from direct contact (52 percent). Forty percent reported secondary sources (information from colleagues, scientific grapevine, media) as the basis for their knowledge.
See also Industrial Chemist (1987a,b). The editors expressed surprise at the high level of responses: 28.4 percent of the 290 respondents indicated that they faked a research result often or occasionally.