0% found this document useful (0 votes)

181 views224 pages

Responsible Science

Science

Uploaded by

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

181 views224 pages

Responsible Science

Science

Uploaded by

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 224

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.

html
We ship printed books within 1 business day; personal PDFs are available immediately.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the

Integrity of the Research Process
Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of
Research, National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine
ISBN: 0-309-58451-5, 224 pages, 6 x 9, (1992)
This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html

Visit the National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books
from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,
the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council:
Download hundreds of free books in PDF
Read thousands of books online for free
Explore our innovative research tools try the Research Dashboard now!
Sign up to be notified when new books are published
Purchase printed books and selected PDF files

Thank you for downloading this PDF. If you have comments, questions or
just want more information about the books published by the National
Academies Press, you may contact our customer service department tollfree at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or send an email to
[email protected].

This book plus thousands more are available at http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File are copyrighted by the National
Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited without
written permission of the National Academies Press. Request reprint permission for this book.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original
typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained,
and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
i

Responsible Science

Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

VOLUME I

Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS

Washington, D.C.1992

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
ii
National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the panel responsible for this report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance. This report is the result of work done by an independent panel appointed by the
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, which has authorized its release to the public.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved
by a Report Review Committee and by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy.
Both consist of members of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
and Institute of Medicine.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.). Panel on Scientific Responsibility
and the Conduct of Research. Responsible science: ensuring the integrity of the research process /
Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute
of Medicine.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-309-04591-6
1. ResearchMoral and ethical aspects. 2. Responsibility.
I. Title.
Q180.55.M67C66 1992
174'.95dc20
92-10780 CIP
Copyright 1992 by the National Academy of Sciences
No part of this book may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic process, or
in the form of a phonographic recording, nor may it be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or
otherwise copied for public or private use, without written permission from the publisher, except for
the purposes of official use by the United States Government.
This book is printed with soy ink on acid-free recycled stock
Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
iii

National Academy of Sciences

2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON. D. C. 20418
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any
part of what one has recognized to be true.
Albert Einstein
These words are inscribed on the statue of Albert Einstein that stands at the
front of the National Academy of Sciences building. The search for truth is the
vocation of every scientist, a vocation that inspires each of us to pursue exciting
and controversial ideas, to engage in spirited exchange with our colleagues and
critics, and to counter customary habits of thinking and analysis with new
insights and observations.
This report, Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research
Process, thoughtfully examines the challenges posed in ensuring that the search
for truth reflects adherence to ethical standards. In recent years, we have learned,
sometimes painfully, that not all scientists adhere to this obligation. Reports of
falsified research results and plagiarism involving both junior and senior
scientists have stimulated doubts and criticism about the ways in which
misconduct in science is addressed by the research community. Misconduct in
science is now being publicly examined in all of its aspectshow misconduct is
defined, the process by which misconduct is discovered, and procedures for
judging innocence or guilt and assessing penalties. Also being explored are the
appropriate roles of individuals, research institutions, journals, government
research agencies, and the legal system.
Issues of misconduct and integrity in science present complex questions.
These issues require the sustained attention of all members of the research
community as well as of leaders in the public and private sector who are
concerned with safeguarding the health of science. In this regard, ensuring the
integrity of the research process is similar to assuring safety in the workplace: it
is a process that requires continued participation from all levels of the entire
research enterprisethe practitioners, the host institutions, the sponsors in
government, and the legislators who provide the funds.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
iv

The world of science today is an exciting one, filled with tremendous

research opportunities and the ability to contribute to the solution of pressing
national needs. In the midst of this excitement, however, it is important to reflect
on the values and standards that guide responsible research practices. Three years
ago, the Council of the National Academy of Sciences prepared a booklet, On
Being a Scientist , to stimulate young researchers to identify and uphold the
methods that keep science strong and healthy. Responsible Science is another step
toward informing discussions among scientists, and between scientists and the
general public, of ethical issues that arise in the contemporary research
environment.
Each major institution of American society is now undergoing scrutiny and
examination. It is natural for scientists to affirm and protect the traditions and
standards that contribute to a healthy and vigorous research system. However, it
is also important for scientists to demonstrate the accountability that accompanies
public investment in research. This includes setting in place procedures to
identify and adjudicate cases of misconduct and supporting measures that will
strengthen the integrity of the research system. Cautioning against proposals that
may impose counterproductive restraints is important, but not enough.
The report of this panel is the result of intense discussion, analysis, and
reflection. It is an important contribution to the national dialogue on integrity in
the conduct of research. The broader scientific community knows that ensuring
the integrity of the research process is fundamental to the success of science.
Scientists must also recognize that it is requisite to the continuing support of
science with public funds.
This letter of transmittal conveys the basic sentiments expressed in the
report. Ensuring the integrity of the research process is one of the fundamental
obligations that accompanies the "right to search for truth."

Frank Press
President
National Academy of Sciences

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
v

Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research

EDWARD E. DAVID, JR. (Chairman), President, EED, Inc.
PHILIP H. ABELSON, Deputy Editor of Science and Science Advisor, American
Association for the Advancement of Science
VICTOR R. BAKER, Regents Professor and Professor of Geosciences and
Planetary Sciences, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona
ALBERT BARBER, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of California, Los
Angeles
MICHAEL BERMAN, President, The Duberstein Group, Inc.
JOHN DEUTCH, Institute Professor of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
VAL L. FITCH, James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of
Physics, Princeton University
MARYE ANNE FOX, M. June and J. Virgil Waggoner Regents Chair in
Chemistry, University of Texas at Austin
PETER GALISON, Co-chairman, History of Science Program, Stanford
University
BERNARD GERT, Stone Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy,
Dartmouth College
IRA J. HIRSH, Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor of Psychology
and Audiology, Washington University
JENNY L. McFARLAND, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Brain and
Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
LAURIE E. McNEIL, Associate Professor, Department of Physics and
Astronomy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
RICHARD A. MESERVE, Partner, Covington and Burling
FRANK M. RICHTER, Professor and Chairman, Department of Geophysical
Sciences, University of Chicago
ARTHUR H. RUBENSTEIN, Professor and Chairman, Department of Medicine,
University of Chicago
HOWARD K. SCHACHMAN,* Professor, Department of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley
HOWARD E. SIMMONS, JR., Vice President and Senior Science Advisor, E.I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc.
ROBERT L. SPRAGUE, Professor in the College of Medicine and Director of
the Institute for Research on Human Development, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
SHEILA WIDNALL, Associate Provost and Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
vi

PATRICIA K. WOOLF, Lecturer, Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton

University
KEITH R. YAMAMOTO,* Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of
Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco
Staff
ROSEMARY CHALK, Study Director
BARRY GOLD, Senior Staff Officer
SUSAN MAURIZI, Editor
DAVID H. GUSTON, Research Assistant
MARYANN SHANESY, Administrative Secretary
ELIZABETH BLOUNT, Secretary

* Members whose dissent from the panel consensus is expressed in the minority
statement following Chapter 8 of the report.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
vii

Committee On Science, Engineering, And Public Policy

CORNELIUS J. PINGS (Chairman), Provost and Senior Vice President of
Academic Affairs, University of Southern California
LAWRENCE BOGORAD, Maria Moors Cabot Professor of Biology, Harvard
University
STUART BONDURANT, Professor and Dean, School of Medicine, University
of North Carolina
ROBERT A. BURT, Southmayd Professor of Law, Yale University
ALBERT M. CLOGSTON, Member, Center for Material Sciences, Los Alamos
National Laboratory
RALPH GOMORY, President, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
HARRY B. GRAY, Arnold O. Beckman Professor of Chemistry, Division of
Chemistry, California Institute of Technology
WILLIAM G. HOWARD, JR., Scottsdale, Arizona
RICHARD M. JOHNS,* Massey Professor and Director, Department of
Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University
FRANCIS E. LOW, Institute Professor, Department of Physics, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
JOHN L. McLUCAS, Aerospace Consultant
BEATRICE MINTZ, Senior Member, Institute for Cancer Research, Fox Chase
Cancer Center
C. KUMAR PATEL, Executive Director of Research, Materials Sciences,
Engineering, and Academic Affairs Division, AT&T Bell Laboratories
FRANK PRESS (ex officio), President, National Academy of Sciences
KENNETH I. SHINE (ex officio), President, Institute of Medicine
MAXINE F. SINGER,* President, Carnegie Institution of Washington
ROBERT M. SOLOW, Institute Professor, Department of Economics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
H. GUYFORD STEVER, Science Advisor
ROBERT M. WHITE (ex officio), President, National Academy of Engineering
Staff
LAWRENCE E. McCRAY, Executive Director
BARBARA A. CANDLAND, Administrative Assistant

Term expired June 30, 1991.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
viii

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating

society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering
research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their
use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by
the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise
the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.
Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the
charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of
outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of
Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national
needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy
of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate
professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of
the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National
Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the
federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical
care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institutedicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and
technology with the Academys purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general
policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal
operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public,
and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered
jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.
Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the
National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
PREFACE

Preface

Concerns about integrity in the conduct of research and misconduct in

science raise complex issues. Scientists rely on an honor system based on
tradition, and on the operation of self-regulating checks and balances to foster
responsible research practices. But following a series of highly publicized cases
of misconduct in science in the 1980s, the federal government set into motion
policies and procedures that now affect every scientist and research institution
seeking funding from the Public Health Service and the National Science
Foundation. The problems associated with cases of misconduct in science have
not yet been resolved. In addition, new concerns have emerged about the methods
that are appropriate to ensure integrity in a dynamic, highly decentralized, and
diverse research enterprise.
In 1989, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy
of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) initiated a major study to
examine issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research.
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy convened a study
panel to review factors affecting the integrity of science and the research process
as it is carried out in the United States today and to recommend steps for
reinforcing responsible research practices. The panel was also asked to review
institutional mechanisms that exist for addressing allegations of misconduct in
science. Finally, the panel was asked to consider the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
PREFACE

advantages and disadvantages of formal guidelines for the conduct of research.

The panel included junior and senior scientists from various scientific
disciplines, public and private universities, and different regions of the United
States; attorneys; research administrators; science editors; a philosopher; a
historian; a whistle-blower; and individuals experienced with the formulation of
governmental policies on misconduct in science. When our panel of 22 members
convened, we knew that this would be a difficult and controversial study.
We did not expect that our discussions would achieve simple solutions or
easy explanations for the ethical problems that are apparent in the modern
research environment. Panel members had fundamental disagreements about the
nature of the problems to be addressed as well as the appropriateness of potential
solutions. With two exceptions, panel members achieved consensus in this
report. We believe that the ideas, findings, and recommendations that follow
provide a foundation for addressing the complex challenge of ensuring the
integrity of the research process.
The panel held seven meetings between May 1990 and June 1991. We met
with numerous junior and senior scientists, research administrators, government
officials, leaders from scientific and educational associations and journals, and
congressional representatives. We heard opposing points of view about factors
that affect integrity and misconduct in the research environment.
We drew on several Academy studies and reports, including the NAS's On
Being a Scientist (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989), the IOM's
The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences (1989), the
Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable's Science and Technology
in the Academic Enterprise (1989), and the National Research Council's Sharing
Research Data (1985).
Our report consists of two volumes. Volume I includes the findings and
recommendations of the study panel. A minority statement, drafted by the two
members of the panel who disagreed with the panel consensus, follows Chapter 8.
Volume II includes the six working papers of the study panel as well as selected
policy statements, developed by various institutions to address issues related to
responsible research practices and misconduct in science, that proved useful in
the panel's deliberations.
This report recommends specific actions that all scientists, their institutions,
and their sponsors can take to preserve and strengthen the integrity of the research
process and also to deal with allegations of misconduct. The recommendations
provide a blueprint for encouraging and safeguarding the intellectual
independence that is essential

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
PREFACE
xi

to doing the best science while also providing for fundamental accountability to
those who sponsor and support scientific research.
Edward E. David, Jr., Chairman

Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
PREFACE
xii

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xiii

Acknowledgments

The panel wishes to thank the individuals who provided assistance and
information during the course of this study, including Robert Andersen, Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; Michele Applegate, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and
Mental Health Administration; John Bailar, McGill University; Bernard Barber,
Columbia University; Michael Barrett, House Committee on Energy and
Commerce; Lyle Bivens, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
Claudia Blair, National Institutes of Health; Erich Bloch, former director,
National Science Foundation; James Bower, California Institute of Technology;
John Brauman, Stanford University; D. Allan Bromely, Office of Science and
Technology Policy; Donald Buzzelli, National Science Foundation; Mary Carter,
Agricultural Research Service; Marta Cehelsky, National Science Foundation;
Robert Charrow, Crowell and Moring; John Collette, E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co., Inc.; Tom Devine, Government Accountability Project; Alicia Dustira,
Office of Science and Technology Policy; Richard Epstein, University of
Chicago; Ned Feder, National Institutes of Health; Nina Fedoroff, Carnegie
Institution of Washington; Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University;
Alfred Fishman, University of Pennsylvania; Mark S. Frankel, American
Association for the Advancement of Science; Michael Gilman, Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory; D. A. Hendersen, Office of Science and Technology Policy;
Charles Herz, National Science Foundation; Roger W. Heyns, the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation; Mark P.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xiv

Jacobsen, Covington and Burling; Richard Johns, Johns Hopkins University;

Edward Korn, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; Donald Langenberg,
University of Maryland; and Nathan Lewis, California Institute of Technology.
Also, David Meyer, University of California, Los Angeles; Barbara
Mishkin, Hogan and Hartson; Frederick Mosteller, Harvard University; Robert
Park, American Physical Society; John Pierce, Stanford University; William
Raub, National Institutes of Health; Arnold Relman, New England Journal of
Medicine; Ellis Rubenstein, Science magazine; Paul Russell, Harvard Medical
School; Alan Shinn, National Science Foundation; Eleanor Shore, Harvard
Medical School; Gregory Simon, House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology; Maxine Singer, Carnegie Institution of Washington; Stephen Smale,
University of California, Berkeley; Nicholas Steneck, University of Michigan;
Richard Stephens, U.S. Department of Energy; Walter Stewart, National
Institutes of Health; Peter Stockton, House Committee on Energy and
Commerce; Philip Sunshine, National Science Foundation; Judith Swazey,
Acadia Institute; Michael Teitelbaum, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; Robert
Weinberg, Whitehead Institute; James Wyngaarden, former director, National
Institutes of Health; Rosemary Yancik, National Institutes of Health; Larry
Zipursky, University of California, Los Angeles; and Diana Zuckerman, House
Committee on Government Operations.
Although this report represents the work of the panel members, it would not
have been produced without the support of professional staff from the Committee
on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. Rosemary
Chalk, the project's study director, drafted the chapters and refined them on the
basis of the panel's discussions and conclusions. Barry Gold, senior staff officer,
provided editorial guidance for the report, prepared the material for Chapter 3,
and wrote the working paper on congressional activities in Volume II. Dave
Guston, research assistant, provided editorial and bibliographic support for the
report, prepared contributions for Chapter 2, and wrote the working paper on
mentorship in Volume II. Lawrence McCray, executive director of the Committee
on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, provided general guidance and
review for the study. The panel is grateful, also, to the secretaries for the project:
Maryann Shanesy, Marian Cole, Barbara Candland, and Elizabeth Blount. They
prepared manuscripts, arranged travel, and assisted with panel meetings.
Others within the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Institute of
Medicine (IOM), and National Research Council (NRC) who were

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

instrumental in the completion of this study are Frank Press, president of NAS;
Samuel O. Thier, former president of IOM; Philip Smith, executive director of the
NRC; Enriqueta C. Bond, executive officer of IOM; John Campbell, senior
program officer, Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable; Michael
A. Stoto, deputy division director, IOM Division of Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention; Porter Coggeshall, Report Review Committee; Susan
Maurizi, editor, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and
Applications; and Stephen Mautner, National Academy Press.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

xvi

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SPONSORS

xvii

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SPONSORS
xviii

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTENTS

xix

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1

INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Research Enterprise
The Traditions of Science
Changing Circumstances and Expectations
The Problem of Misconduct in Science
Ensuring Integrity in the Research Process
Acknowledging the Range of Concerns
Taking Constructive Action
Purpose and Scope of This Study
Charge to the Panel
Approach, Audience, Content
Methods, Definitions, and Basic Assumptions
Evaluating Available Data
Defining TermsArticulating a Framework for Fostering
Responsible Research Conduct
Understanding Causes and Evaluating Cures
Starting from Logical Assumptions
Notes

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1
17
17
17
18
19
20
20
21
22
22
22
24
24
24
30
31
33

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTENTS

SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

Factors Affecting the Development of Research Practices
Norms of Science
Individual Scientific Disciplines
The Role of Individual Scientists and Research Teams
Institutional Policies
Government Regulations and Policies
Social Attitudes and Expectations
Research Practices
Data Handling
Communication and Publication
Correction of Errors
Research Training and Mentorship
Findings and Conclusions
Notes

36
40
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
51
56
59
62
64

CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

The U.S. Scientific Research Enterprise
Brief Historical Perspective
Current Concerns
The Changing Research Scene
Increased Size and Scope of the Research Enterprise
Complexity of Collaboration
Organization, Goals, and Management of Research Groups
Regulation and Accountability
Reward System
University-Industry Cooperation
Findings and Conclusions
Notes

67
67
67
69
69
71
72
72
74
74
76
77
79

MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Incidence of Misconduct in SciencePublished Evidence and
Information
Government Statistics on Misconduct in Science
Consequences of Confirmed Misconduct

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

81
81
84

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTENTS

xxi

Government Definitions of Misconduct in Science

Ambiguity in Categories
Reports from Local Institutional Officials
International Studies
Analyses, Surveys, and Other Reports
Findings and Conclusions
Notes
5

HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE
UniversityGovernment Approaches
Growing Interaction in the 1980s
General Requirements
More Specific Requirements Related to Misconduct Policies and Procedures
Institutional Responses to Requirements
Findings, Discussion, and Conclusions
Government Regulations and Procedures
Department of Health and Human Services
National Science Foundation
GovernmentUniversity EffortsUnresolved Issues
Areas of Disagreement
Observations and Discussion
The Role of the Courts
Special Concerns Prompted by UniversityGovernmentCourt
Interactions
Due Process Requirements
Consequences of Misconduct Inquiries and Investigations
Faculty Participation in Misconduct Investigations
The Role of Whistle-blowers
The Problem of False Accusations
Additional Findings and Conclusions
Current Situation
Balancing Accountability and the Need for Intellectual
Freedom
Need for an Independent Body as an Additional Resource
Notes

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

85
87
88
88
95
95
98
98
98
100
100
101
104
108
108
111
112
112
114
115
116
116
118
119
120
121
121
121
123
124
125

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTENTS

xxii

STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH

PRACTICES
Acknowledging Responsibility and Taking Action
Integrating Ethics into the Education of Scientists
Benefits of Education in Ethics
Approaches to Teaching Ethics
Considering Guidelines for Responsible Research Practices
Current Means for Providing Guidance
Scope and Purpose of Institutional Guidelines for the Conduct of Research
Benefits of Institutional Guidelines for the Conduct of
Research
Disadvantages of Institutional Guidelines for the Conduct
of Research
Conclusions About Institutional Guidelines for the Conduct
of Research
A Framework of Subjects to Consider in Encouraging Responsible Research Practices
Discouraging Questionable Research Practices
Notes

128

RECOMMENDATIONS
Acting to Define and Strengthen Basic Principles and Practices
Recommendation One
Recommendation Two
Recommendation Three
Dealing with MisconductInstitutional Roles
Recommendation Four
Recommendation Five
Recommendation Six
Recommendation Seven
Recommendation Eight
Recommendation Nine
Taking Additional Steps
Recommendation Ten
Discussion and Details
Recommendation Eleven
Recommendation Twelve
Note

145
145
145
146
147
147
147
147
148
149
149
149
150
150
150
154
155
155

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

156

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

128
130
130
131
133
133
135
136
136
137
138
142
143

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTENTS

A
B

xxiii

MINORITY STATEMENT
180

APPENDIXES
Biographical Sketches of Panel Members
Subpanels
185
188

INDEX
191

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTENTS
xxiv

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION
The community of scientists is bound by a set of values, traditions, and
standards that embody honesty, integrity, objectivity, and collegiality. These
values are reflected in the particular principles and practices characteristic of
specific scientific disciplines. The diversity, flexibility, and creativity of the
research communitystrengths that have contributed to decades of scientific
achievement and progress in the United Statesalso derive from the
decentralized character of the research enterprise.
For centuries scientists have relied on each other, on the self-correcting
mechanisms intrinsic to the nature of science, and on the traditions of their
community to safeguard the integrity of the research process. This approach has
been successful largely because of the widespread acknowledgment that science
cannot work otherwise, and also because high standards and reputation are
important to scientists. Dishonest or untrustworthy individuals become known to
their colleagues through various mechanisms, including word of mouth and the
inability of other scientists to confirm the work in question. Such irreproducible
work is recognized and discredited through the processes of peer review and
evaluation that are critical to making professional appointments, accepting work
for publication, and awarding research support.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

However, the ability of research scientists and their institutions to safeguard

the integrity of the research process is now being questioned. Comparatively
recent and dramatic increases in the size and influence of the U.S. research
enterprise,1 and in the amounts and patterns of funding, have led to changing
social expectations about the accountability of scientists and their institutions for
research supported by public funds. In addition, the changing nature of
collaborative efforts, the quickening pace and increasing complexity of research
endeavors, and the growing emphasis on commercialization of research results
have combined to exacerbate stresses that have always been apparent to some
extent in scientific research. During the last decade, reports of wrongdoing in
science have been accompanied by government oversight and continued scrutiny
of the conduct of scientific research. All of these developments have profound
implications for the research enterprise's system of internal checks and balances,
which evolved in a research environment far removed from the forces of the
political process.
The Problem of Misconduct in Science
During the period from March 1989 to March 1991, more than 200
allegations of misconduct in science were recorded by U.S. government offices
(NSF, 1990b; Wheeler, 1991).2 From this number, about 30 cases have resulted
so far in confirmed findings of misconduct in science (NSF, 1990b; DHHS,
1991b). Although the possibility of underreporting needs to be considered, these
statistics indicate that the reported incidence of misconduct in science is low
compared, for example, to the 26,000 research awards supported annually by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH, 1991).
However, any misconduct comes at a high price both for scientists and for
the public. Cases of misconduct in science involving fabrication, falsification, and
plagiarism breach the trust that allows scientists to build on others' work, as well
as eroding the trust that allows policymakers and others to make decisions based
on scientific evidence and judgment, especially in instances when definitive
studies are not available. The inability or refusal of research institutions to
address misconduct-in-science cases can undermine both the integrity of the
research process and self-governance by the research community.
Acting to Ensure Integrity in Research
To respond to the need for more visible, explicit mechanisms to ensure
integrity in the research process, and to handle allegations of

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

misconduct in science, scientists and their research institutions face three major
challenges. One challenge is to develop vigorous approaches to protect and
enhance knowledge of scientific traditions and sound research practices and to
penalize those who engage in misconduct. A second challenge is to foster
responsible research conduct in a period of increasing diversification of funding
sources, growing demands on limited research resources, and greater incentives
for financial gain in the research environment. A third challenge is to ensure
fairness and balance in efforts to establish individual and institutional
accountability in scientific research activities, so that frivolous or malicious
charges as well as counterproductive regulations are avoided.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
Charge to the Panel
To address concerns that affect the entire U.S. scientific community, the
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine convened the 22-member Panel on Scientific Responsibility
and the Conduct of Research. The panel was asked to examine the following
issues:
1.

What is the state of current knowledge about modern research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approach, Scope, and Audience

The panel (1) examined scientific principles and research practices; changes
within the contemporary research environment; and the roles of individuals,
educational programs, and research guidelines in fostering responsible research
practices and (2) considered the incidence and significance of misconduct in
science; examined how institutions have handled allegations of misconduct; and
also analyzed the complex problems associated with responding to such
allegations.
The panel's approach is not intended to diminish the importance of related
problems such as conflict of interest and the allocation of indirect costs, but
rather to reflect the panel's judgment that integrity in the research process itself
and issues arising from misconduct in science deserve critical examination and
consideration on their own merits.
Limited availability to date of evaluated data and the fact that the panel often
had to rely on its own informed judgment require that this report be viewed as
part of a comprehensive dialogue on and examination of integrity in the research
process. The panel emphasizes that this report is addressed to all members of the
scientific community, regardless of their institutional affiliation.
Defining TermsArticulating a Framework for Fostering
Responsible Research Conduct
The panel defined the term ''integrity of the research process" as the
adherence by scientists and their institutions to honest and verifiable methods in
proposing, performing, evaluating, and reporting research activities.
To provide policy guidance for scientists, research institutions, and
government research agencies concerned about ensuring the integrity of the
research process as well as addressing misconduct in science, the panel developed
a framework that delineates three categories of behaviors in the research
environment that require attention. These categories are (1) misconduct in
science, (2) questionable research practices, and (3) other misconduct.
Unethical actions of all types are intolerable, and appropriate actions by the
research community to address such problems are essential. But the panel
believes that there are risks inherent in developing institutional policies,
procedures, and programs that treat all of these behaviors without distinction.
Inappropriate actions by government and institutional officials can create an
atmosphere that disturbs

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

effective methods of self-regulation and harms pioneering research activities.

In developing its framework of definitions, the panel adopted an approach
that evaluates how seriously the various behaviors compromise the integrity of
the research process.
Misconduct in Science
Misconduct in science is defined as fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research. Misconduct in
science does not include errors of judgment; errors in the recording,
selection, or analysis of data; differences in opinions involving the
interpretation of data; or misconduct unrelated to the research process.
Fabrication is making up data or results, falsification is changing data or
results, and plagiarism is using the ideas or words of another person without
giving appropriate credit.
By proposing this precise definition of misconduct in science, the panel is in
unanimous agreement that the core of the definition of misconduct in science
should consist of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. The panel
unanimously rejects ambiguous language such as the category "other serious
deviations from accepted research practices" currently included in regulatory
definitions adopted by the Public Health Service and the National Science
Foundation (DHHS, 1989a; NSF, 1991b). In particular, the panel wishes to
discourage the possibility that a misconduct complaint could be lodged against
scientists based solely on their use of novel or unorthodox research methods. The
use of ambiguous terms in regulatory definitions invites exactly such an
overexpansive interpretation.
In rejecting the "other serious deviations" category, the panel considered
whether a different measure of flexibility should be included in its proposed
definition of misconduct in science, so as to allow the imposition of sanctions for
conduct similar in character to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.
Some panel members believe that the definition should also encompass
other actions that directly damage the integrity of the research process and that
are undertaken with the intent to deceive.
Questionable Research Practices
Questionable research practices are actions that violate traditional
values of the research enterprise and that may be detrimental to the research
process. However, there is at present neither

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

broad agreement as to the seriousness of these actions nor any consensus on

standards for behavior in such matters. Questionable research practices do not
directly damage the integrity of the research process and thus do not meet the
panel's criteria for inclusion in the definition of misconduct in science. However,
they deserve attention because they can erode confidence in the integrity of the
research process, violate traditions associated with science, affect scientific
conclusions, waste time and resources, and weaken the education of new
scientists.
Questionable research practices include activities such as the following:
Failing to retain significant research data for a reasonable period;
Maintaining inadequate research records, especially for results that are
published or are relied on by others;
Conferring or requesting authorship on the basis of a specialized service
or contribution that is not significantly related to the research reported in
the paper;3
Refusing to give peers reasonable access to unique research materials or
data that support published papers;
Using inappropriate statistical or other methods of measurement to
enhance the significance of research findings;4
Inadequately supervising research subordinates or exploiting them; and
Misrepresenting speculations as fact or releasing preliminary research
results, especially in the public media, without providing sufficient data
to allow peers to judge the validity of the results or to reproduce the
experiments.
The panel wishes to make a clear demarcation between misconduct in
science and questionable research practicesthe two categories are not
equivalent, and they require distinct types of responses by the research
community and research institutions.
Other Misconduct
Certain forms of unacceptable behavior are clearly not unique to the conduct
of science, although they may occur in a laboratory or research environment.
Such behaviors, which are subject to generally applicable legal and social
penalties, include actions such as sexual and other forms of harassment of
individuals; misuse of funds; gross negligence by persons in their professional
activities; vandalism, including tampering with research experiments or
instrumentation; and violations of government research regulations, such as those
dealing

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

with radioactive materials, recombinant DNA research, and the use of human or
animal subjects. Industry-university relationships, and the resultant possibility of
conflicts of interest, also raise issues that require special attention.
Recognized legal and institutional procedures should be in place to address
complaints and to discourage behavior involving forms of misconduct that are
not unique to the research process. The panel concluded that such behaviors
require serious attention but lie outside the scope of the charge for this study.
On some occasions, however, certain forms of "other misconduct" are
directly associated with misconduct in science. Among these are cover-ups of
misconduct in science, reprisals against whistle-blowers, malicious allegations of
misconduct in science, and violations of due process protections in handling
complaints of misconduct in science. These forms of other misconduct may
require action and special administrative procedures.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Scientists and Research Institutions
Because scientists and the achievements of science have earned the respect
of society at large, the behavior of scientists must accord not only with the
expectations of scientific colleagues, but also with those of a larger community.
As science becomes more closely linked to economic and political objectives, the
processes by which scientists formulate and adhere to responsible research
practices will be subject to increasing public scrutiny. This is one reason for
scientists and research institutions to clarify and strengthen the methods by which
they foster responsible research practices.
Accordingly, the panel emphasizes the following conclusions:
The panel believes that the existing self-regulatory system in science is
sound. But modifications are necessary to foster integrity in a changing
research environment, to handle cases of misconduct in science, and to
discourage questionable research practices.
Individual scientists have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that
their results are reproducible, that their research is reported thoroughly
enough so that results are reproducible, and that significant errors are
corrected when they are recognized. Editors of scientific journals share
these last two responsibilities.
Research mentors, laboratory directors, department heads, and senior
faculty are responsible for defining, explaining, exemplifying, and
requiring adherence to the value systems of their institutions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Administrative officials within the research institution also bear

responsibility for ensuring that good scientific practices are observed in
units of appropriate jurisdiction and that balanced reward systems
appropriately recognize research quality, integrity, teaching, and
mentorship.
The Changing Research Enterprise

The academic research community, governed by traditions derived from an

earlier model of a community of independent scholars who participated equally in
academic governance, is challenged by the complexity of today's issues and of the
environment in which research is conducted. Still, basic research continues to
flourish, and faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students continue to
contribute extraordinary research capability to science.
In reviewing changes within the scientific research enterprise, the panel
reached the following conclusions:
Scientific research is part of a larger and more complicated enterprise
today, creating a greater need for individual and institutional attention to
matters that affect the integrity of the research process. Scientists
themselves and research institutions will be expected to play a more
active role in ensuring that the activities performed by researchers are
within the governance mechanisms of their institutions.
The growth and diversity of modern research call for institutions to
accept explicit responsibility for fostering the integrity of the research
process and for handling allegations of misconduct. In recognizing that
their faculty and research staff are responsible for maintaining the
integrity of the research process, institutions should retain and accept
certain explicit obligations. Principal among these is providing a
research environment that fosters honesty, integrity, and a sense of
community. Research institutions should also recognize the risks that are
inherent in self-regulation and strive to involve outside parties, when
appropriate, in investigating or evaluating the conduct of their own
members.
The increased size, specialization, and diversity of research groups, and
other changes in the social relationships of their members, have
stimulated personal conflicts and misunderstandings, including disputes
about fairness and allocation of credit. These disputes may be prevented
by positive efforts to foster responsible research practices and by taking
preemptive actions to promote a harmonious and productive workplace.
Frank discussions, both formal and informal,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

possibly aided by outside mediators, are additional tools to use in

addressing these disputes.
The issues associated with conflict of interest in the academic research
environment are sufficiently problematic that they deserve thorough
study and analysis by major academic and scientific organizations,
including the National Academy of Sciences.
The research environment is stressful and yet conductive to the
remarkable productivity of researchers. The rewards for successful
research are greater now than in the past, but today's rapid pace of
development may undermine critical internal checks and balances and
may increase opportunities for misrepresentation or distortion of
research results.
Misconduct in ScienceIncidence and Significance
The panel found that existing data are inadequate to draw accurate
conclusions about the incidence of misconduct in science or of questionable
research practices. The panel points out that the number of confirmed cases
of misconduct in science is low compared to the level of research activity in
the United States. However, as with all forms of misconduct, underreporting
may be significant; federal agencies have only recently imposed procedural
and reporting requirements that may yield larger numbers of reported
cases. Any misconduct comes at a price to scientists, their research
institutions, and society. Thus every case of misconduct in science is serious
and requires attention.
Handling Allegations of Misconduct in ScienceInstitutional
Responses and Experience
University-Government Approaches
Government agencies, congressional oversight committees, and academic
institutions generally agree that the primary responsibility for handling
complaints of misconduct in science rests with the research organization.
However, the development and implementation of policies and procedures for
handling misconduct in science have been problematic. Some universities,
particularly small research institutions, are not prepared to accept responsibility
for pursuing allegations of misconduct in science.5 It is difficult for any institution
to investigate members of its own community, especially individuals who hold
positions of high esteem. In addition, some research institutions and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

government agencies have made mistakes in investigations of complex cases,

such as appointing to investigatory panels members who have personal or
professional ties to the individuals who have been accused of misconduct in
science. All these factors foster a perception that research institutions are not
dealing effectively with misconduct in science,6 prompting criticism of the speed,
rigor, honesty, fairness, and openness of their response mechanisms.
Many universities have now established policies and procedures for handling
allegations of misconduct in science, and some research institutions have acquired
valuable experience in implementing these procedures to deal with cases of
misconduct. However, the legal and procedural issues associated with
misconduct-in-science investigations are extraordinarily complex, and there is
little case law in the public record to guide and inform analysis of these issues.
The panel believes that, in general, the current and evolving system of
government and institutional relationships requires more experience and
adjustments before specific policy or procedural changes can be recommended.
Research institutions need to clarify their own approaches and judgments on these
issues before any general consensus can be reached on procedural matters.
Part of the difficulty in developing vigorous and effective institutional
responses to incidents or allegations of misconduct in science arises from
variation in and disagreement about essential elements of fairness, completeness,
and objectivity that should characterize investigations. Effective responses are
impeded also by recurring patterns of denial by some institutional officials and
faculty members who believe that misconduct in science is not a serious matter.
The pressures of conducting an objective investigation of complaints involving
respected or prestigious scientists cannot be underestimated. Strong and informed
leadership is needed to clarify procedural matters and to ensure that allegations or
apparent incidents of misconduct in science are not ignored or covered up.
Need for Explicit Procedural Elements
Institutional policies and procedures should include a common entry point
for handling complaints from the outset; clear procedures are necessary for
determining which type of alleged offenses will be reviewed by administrative
staff or faculty. A sequence of steps to achieve resolution of significant disputes
is required. All of these steps require clear separations between each of the
following groups: the affected parties, those who are judging the seriousness of
the complaint and formulating the evidentiary base to substantiate charges,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

and those who must adjudicate penalties based on charges of misconduct in

science.
The panel believes that institutional procedures should define explicit and
clear criteria that are to be used in determining when a misconduct inquiry should
proceed to a more formal investigation. The panel concludes that administrative
officials and faculty have a responsibility to inform all members of their
institution, especially junior personnel, of existing channels for handling
complaints about misconduct in science or other misconduct.
Current Situation
The panel is aware of the inherent difficulty posed by asking research
institutions to investigate allegations of misconduct in science that involve their
own members. Internal investigations must demonstrate a fundamental
commitment to independence and objectivity to ensure their credibility and
success, and may be enhanced by the participation of members from outside the
affected organization. The objectivity of misconduct-in-science investigations
also relies heavily on the credibility of the process used to arrive at findings and
recommendations. To maintain the privilege of self-regulation, research
institutions must exercise vigilance and diligence in examining the conduct of
their own members.
Balancing Accountability and the Need for Intellectual Freedom
In the wake of procedural and policy reforms in response to incidents of
misconduct in science, representatives from the academic and scientific
community have raised concerns about the long-term or unintended effects that
might result from institutional or governmental intrusions into the research
environment.7 Aggressive efforts to control research practices, if carried to an
extreme, can damage the research enterprise. Balance is required. Inflexible rules
or requirements can increase the time and effort necessary to conduct research,
can discourage creative individuals from pursuing research careers, can decrease
innovation, and can in some instances make the research process impossible.
Governmental or regulatory efforts to define "correct" research conduct or
analytical practices can do fundamental harm to research activities if such efforts
encourage orthodoxy and rigidity and inhibit novel or creative research practices.
However, the panel concludes that allegations and incidents of misconduct in
science require a vigorous institutional response and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

that the methods used by research institutions and government to address

allegations of misconduct in science need improvement. Research institutions
sometimes require advice or assistance in addressing allegations of misconduct in
science because of the complexities of these cases or because their faculty or
administrators are reluctant to address in a systematic manner complaints or
suspicions about possible misconduct in science. Research institutions have not
developed mechanisms for broad exchange of information and experience in
resolving difficult cases and consequently lack opportunities for learning from
each other.
Steps to Encourage Responsible Research Practices
In considering different approaches to dealing with questionable research
practices, the panel concluded that questionable practices are best discouraged
through peer review and the system of appointments, evaluations, and other
rewards in the research environment as well as 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 process to maintain the
quality of the research environment, and preserve the diverse disciplinary
traditions that are essential to responsible scientific conduct. 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.
In considering the advantages and disadvantages of guidelines for research
conduct, the panel concluded that although the process of formulating guidelines
may be extremely valuable for those who participate, guidelines that are relevant
and appropriate to research may vary considerably depending on the research
field, the nature of the work, and other factors. To be effective, guidelines must
be incorporated into the process of research and education and become an
operational part of day-to-day activities. If faculty desire to develop guidelines
for the conduct of research, such policies should be formulated by those who will
be directly affected and should be adapted to specific research fields and
protocols.
Institutional guidelines are likely to be less effective than ones formulated at
the group or laboratory level. However, research institutions may wish to adopt
an overarching set of general principles for their members to provide a common
frame of reference. The panel recognizes that the formulation of written
guidelines is an exacting task that requires substantial time and effort.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The panel concluded that subjects such as data management, publication

practices, authorship, peer review, and training and supervision should be
considered in any efforts aimed at developing educational discussions or
guidelines for the responsible conduct of scientific research. This set of subjects
suggests particular topics and examples of "best scientific practice" that should be
considered in formulating statements on research conduct.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ensuring the integrity of the research process requires that scientists and
research institutions give systematic attention to the fundamental values,
principles, and traditions that foster responsible research conduct. In considering
factors that may affect integrity and misconduct in science, the panel formulated
twelve recommendations to strengthen the research enterprise and to clarify the
nature of the responsibilities of scientists, research institutions, and government
agencies in this area.
Acting to Define and Strengthen Basic Principles and
Practices
Recommendation One
Individual scientists in cooperation with officials of research institutions
should accept formal responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the research
process. They should foster an environment, a reward system, and a training
process that encourage responsible research practices.
Recommendation Two
Scientists and research institutions should integrate into their curricula
educational programs that foster faculty and student awareness of concerns
related to the integrity of the research process.
Recommendation Three
Adoption of formal guidelines for the conduct of research can provide a
valuable opportunity for faculty and research institutions to clarify the
nature of responsible practices, but adopting guidelines should be an option,
not a requirement, for research institutions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Dealing with MisconductInstitutional Roles

Recommendation Four
Research institutions and government agencies should adopt a common
framework of definitions, distinguishing among misconduct in science,
questionable research practices, and other forms of misconduct. They should
adopt a single consistent definition of misconduct in science that is based on
fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Accordingly, federal agencies
should review their definitions of misconduct in science to remove
ambiguous categories such as ''other serious deviations from accepted
research practices."
Recommendation Five
Government agencies should adopt common policies and procedures for
handling allegations of misconduct in science. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) should lead the effort to establish governmentwide definitions and procedures. OSTP should consider adopting the
definition of misconduct in science proposed in this report and use this
definition in formulating government-wide model policies.
Recommendation Six
Research institutions and government research agencies should have
policies and procedures that ensure appropriate and prompt responses to
allegations of misconduct in science. Research institutions should foster
effective and appropriate methods for detecting and handling incidents of
misconduct in science and should strengthen the implementation of
misconduct-in-science policies and procedures that incorporate fundamental
elements of due process.
Recommendation Seven
Scientists and their institutions should act to discourage questionable
research practices through a broad range of formal and informal methods in
the research environment. They should also accept responsibility for
determining which questionable research practices are serious enough to
warrant institutional penalties. But the methods used by individual scientists
and research institutions to address questionable research practices should
be distinct from those for handling misconduct in science or other
misconduct.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recommendation Eight
Research institutions should have policies and procedures to address
other misconductsuch as theft, harassment, or vandalismthat may occur
in the research environment. Where procedures for handling complaints
about other misconduct do not exist, allegations should be examined
according to the same administrative mechanisms as those designed to
address misconduct in science, although the procedural pathways for
responding to other misconduct and misconduct in science may differ.
Recommendation Nine
Government research agencies should clarify their roles in addressing
misconduct in science, questionable research practices, and other
misconduct. Although government agencies have specific regulatory
responsibilities in handling the categories of misconduct in science and other
misconduct, their role in addressing questionable research practices should
be designed to support the efforts of scientists and research institutions to
discourage such practices through the processes of education and peer
review.
Taking Additional Steps
Recommendation Ten
An independent Scientific Integrity Advisory Board should be created
by the scientific community and research institutions to exercise leadership
in addressing ethical issues in research conduct; in framing model policies
and procedures to address misconduct in science and other misconduct; to
collect and analyze data on episodes of misconduct in the research
environment; to provide periodic assessments of the adequacy of public and
private systems that have been developed to handle misconduct in science
cases; and to facilitate the exchange of information about and experience
with policies and procedures governing the handling of allegations of
misconduct in science.
Recommendation Eleven
The important role that individual scientists can play in disclosing
incidents of misconduct in science should be acknowledged. Individuals who,
in good conscience, report suspected misconduct in science deserve support
and protection. Their efforts, as well as

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

the efforts of those who participate in misconduct proceedings, can be

invaluable in preserving the integrity of the research process. When
necessary, serious and considered whistle-blowing is an act of courage that
should be supported by the entire research community.
Recommendation Twelve
Scientific societies and scientific journals should continue to provide and
expand resources and forums to foster responsible research practices and to
address misconduct in science and questionable research practices.
NOTES
1. Government funding for U.S. basic research increased in current dollars from $5.4 billion in FY
1982 to an estimated $12.5 billion in FY 1991. See p. 53 in American Association for the
Advancement of Science (1991a). Academic research investigators are also increasingly supported by
nonfederal funds provided by a diverse mix of industrial sponsors, state, and local funds, foundations,
and intramural support. For example, the industrial share of academic R&D funding grew from 3.9
percent in 1980 to an estimated 6.6 percent in 1989. Some specialized academic research centers now
receive over 20 percent of their funding from industry. See p. 106 in National Science Board (1989).
2. The term "allegation" here refers to complaints of misconduct in science that have resulted in a
government case file. An analysis of these allegations is provided in Chapter 4. As of December
1991, about half of these allegations had been resolved.
3. It is possible that some extreme cases of noncontributing authorship may be regarded as
misconduct in science because they constitute a form of falsification. These would include only cases
in which an individual who has made no identifiable contribution to a research paper is named, or
seeks to be named, as a co-author.
4. See Bailar (1986).
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. See, for example, testimony by academic officials and scientists in hearings convened by the House
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (U.S. Congress, 1990b).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

1
Introduction

THE U.S. RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

The Traditions of Science
Scientific research is grounded in values such as integrity, honesty, trust,
curiosity, and respect for intellectual achievement.1 The expression of these
values in the diverse styles and approaches of the various scientific disciplines
has contributed directly to the discovery of knowledge and thus to the
achievements of the U.S. scientific research enterprise. Basic to the honor system
that binds the community of scientists is truthfulness, both as a moral imperative
and as a fundamental operational principle in the scientific research process. 2
Ideally, it is the challenge of gaining a measure of truth that motivates scientists
to formulate, test, and revise their hypotheses in ways that minimize errors.
Scientific achievement as well as human welfare, which is affected
increasingly by the work of scientists, depend on the integrity of the research
process. By integrity of the research process, the panel means the adherence by
scientists and their institutions to honest and verifiable methods in proposing,
performing, evaluating, and reporting research activities. The research process
includes the construction of hypotheses; the development of experimental and
theoretical paradigms; the collection, analysis, and handling of data; the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

generation of new ideas, findings, and theories through experimentation and

analysis; timely communication and publication; refinement of results through
replication and extension of the original work; peer review; and the training and
supervision of associates and students. The traditions of skepticism, openness,
sharing, and disclosure that are associated with the research process not only
provide a means of identifying theoretical or experimental errors that occur
inevitably in science, but also imply an obligation to maintain the integrity of the
research process. Errors are often corrected by later research, stimulated by the
skepticism of other scientists. Error, however, is distinct from actions that directly
compromise the integrity of the research process.
Scientists have relied on each other and the traditions of their community for
centuries to safeguard the integrity of the research process. This approach has
been successful largely because of the widespread acknowledgement that science
cannot work otherwise, and also because high standards and reputation are
important to scientists. Dishonest or untrustworthy individuals become known to
their colleagues through various mechanisms, including word of mouth and the
inability of other scientists to confirm the work in question. Such irreproducible
work is recognized and discredited through the processes of peer review and
evaluation that are critical to making professional appointments, accepting work
for publication, and awarding research support.
Changing Circumstances and Expectations
The U.S. scientific community has maintained a high degree of autonomy
and self-governance during a period of remarkable successes. But the ability of
research scientists and their institutions to safeguard the integrity of the research
process is now being questioned as a result of several significant and
comparatively recent developments. 3
Among these developments are the dramatic increases in the size of the U.S.
research enterprise and in the amounts and patterns of funding. 4 These increases
have come in response to the many notable contributions of scientists, engineers,
and health professionals, emerging research opportunities, and public demands
for solutions to such complex problems as protecting the environment and
ensuring economic well-being. Also apparent are pressures related to the
quickening pace and use of new developments in scienceresearch results in
some areas can rapidly influence public policy, health care services, and the
commercial value of new products.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

By many measures, the U.S. research system has remained notably creative
and productive in this changing environment. In addition to advances in
knowledge about the fundamental processes of biological, physical, and social
systems, a major achievement has been the creation of a generation of welltrained research investigators. The very success of these and other scientific
achievements has contributed to an expanding research enterprise.
But the new dimensions of the scientific enterprise do not come without
stress (Hackett, 1990; OTA, 1991). The growth in the size and specialization of
research teams in some fields has strained the capacity of individual scientists to
maintain the degree of personal involvement and familiarity with their
colleagues' and subordinates' efforts that characterized earlier work. In the words
of one scientist: "It is increasingly difficult for a scientist to master, let alone know
in detail, the reliability of every phase of a large, multiple-author work. Thus, the
individual scientist depends upon the integrity and competence of
colleagues" (Hoshiko, 1991, p. 11).
Individual and institutional efforts to manage and resolve internal stresses in
the research enterprise are increasingly apparent (Hackett, 1990; OTA, 1991).
Disputes have arisen among scientists over allocation of credit and recognition of
intellectual property rights. Schisms have increased between scientific
investigators and research administrators, sponsors, and funders over issues such
as research budgets, cost accounting for research activities, the appropriate
allocation of time between teaching and research responsibilities, and the level of
oversight for research activities.
As a result, scientists are calling attention to factors in the research
environment itself that have been identified as negative.5 But questions about how
to safeguard the integrity of an enterprise that is central to contemporary
American life are of concern to more than scientists alone. The self-regulatory
system in science, which has evolved over the centuries to foster creativity and
scientific achievement, may need to evolve further to meet the demands for
public accountability that accompany government, foundation, and industrial
support of scientific research.6
The Problem of Misconduct in Science
In the 1980s, newspaper and magazine accounts brought to the attention of
the scientific community, the public at large, and the federal government several
instances of scientists who reported measurements they never made, altered
research results, or plagiarized the work of others.7 In many cases, the responses
of the institutions

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

where these actions had occurred seemed slow, inadequate, and confused. 8 Some
research institutions and government agencies set up investigations that appeared
to be biased or failed to disclose incidents of misconduct. Such events raised
additional questions about the integrity of the research process and about the
traditional self-governance of the scientific research community. Continuing
concern has been fueled by anecdotal evidence emerging from press reports,
congressional hearings, or institutional actions taken in specific cases.
During the period from March 1989 to March 1991, more than 200
allegations of misconduct in science were recorded by U.S. government offices
(NSF, 1990b; Wheeler, 1991).9 From this number, about 30 cases have resulted
so far in confirmed findings of misconduct in science (NSF, 1990b; DHHS,
1991b). Although the possibility of underreporting needs to be considered, these
statistics indicate that the reported incidence of misconduct in science is low
compared, for example, to the 26,000 research awards supported annually by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH, 1991).
But any misconduct comes at a high price both for scientists and for the
public, and the possibility of underreporting needs to be considered. Cases of
misconduct in science involving fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism breach
the trust that allows scientists to build on others' work, as well as eroding the
trust that allows policymakers and others to make decisions based on scientific
and objective evidence. The inability or refusal of research institutions to address
such cases can undermine both the integrity of the research process and selfgovernance by the research community.
ENSURING INTEGRITY IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS
Acknowledging the Range of Concerns
Scientists are deeply troubled by reports of misconduct in science. At the
same time, they are concerned that institutional and government bureaucracies
designed to uncover or respond to allegations of misconduct in science may
damage the vitality and productivity of U.S. scientific research. The creative
processes of scientific judgment, experimentation, and error-correction that are
intrinsic to the development of new scientific knowledge require a flexible and
adaptable environment. In a time of expanding research opportunities and
competitive funding pressures, many scientists also fear that significant time, and
possibly resources, could be diverted from research endeavors and used instead to
satisfy administrative controls derived from political imperatives.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

In 1985, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that requires each institution
receiving funds from the Public Health Service to develop an "administrative
process to review reports of scientific fraud in connection with biomedical or
behavioral research" sponsored by the institution.10 Later, the Public health
Service and the National Science Foundation each adopted regulations designed
to address allegations of misconduct in science (DHHS, 1989a; NSF, 1987,
1991b).
Such legislative and regulatory decisions concerned with the integrity of the
research process and misconduct in science mark the beginning of a new set of
relationships between the scientific community and the federal government. In
contrast to an earlier period characterized by unwritten agreements and personal
trust, current policy discussions about integrity and misconduct in science raise
difficult questions about the roles of individual scientists, their laboratories,
research institutions, and government in providing oversight of the research
enterprise to ensure that science is conducted in an honest and responsible
manner.
One observer has aptly summarized some of the basic concerns (Menninger,
1990):
The appearance of federal policy [in an area] once mainly confined to academic
and scientific circles must be taken as a significant matter reflecting a heightened
public perception of scientific research as a determinant of the national future.
This results not just from scientific research's role as producer of new
knowledge, but from its expanding need for sizeable sums of money, its impact
on the country's economic prospects and quality of life, and its generation of
painfully complex ethical dilemmas. These factors have unequivocally moved
the research enterprise out of the isolation of the laboratory and onto the public
stage where a context of motives and expectations prevails that scientists may
find incongruous with their vocation, but which they ignore at their peril.

Taking Constructive Action

Expectations within and outside of research institutions have generated
desires for more visible, explicit mechanisms to handle allegations of misconduct
in science and to assure integrity in the research process. One challenge is to
develop vigorous approaches to protect and enhance scientific traditions and
sound research practices and to penalize those who engage in misconduct. A
second challenge is to foster responsible research conduct in a period of
increasing diversification of funding sources, growing demands on limited
research resources, and greater incentives for financial gain in the research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

environment. A third challenge is to ensure fairness and balance in efforts to

establish individual and institutional accountability in publicly supported research
activities, so that frivolous or malicious charges as well as counterproductive
regulations are avoided.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
Charge to the Panel
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and
the Institute of Medicine sought to address these issues by convening the 22member Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. The
panel was asked to examine the following issues:
1.

What is the state of current knowledge about modern research

practices for a range of disciplines, including trends and practices
that could affect the integrity of research?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of enhanced educational
efforts and explicit guidelines for researchers and research
institutions? Can the research community itself define and strengthen
basic standards for scientists and their institutions?
3. What roles are appropriate for public and private institutions in
promoting responsible research practices? What can be learned from
institutional experiences with current procedures for handling
allegations of misconduct in science?
In addition to outlining approaches to encourage the responsible conduct of
scientific research, the panel was also asked to determine whether existing
unwritten practices should be expressed as principles to guide the responsible
conduct of research. If the panel members judged it advisable, they were
encouraged to prepare model guidelines and other materials.
Approach, Audience, Content
In responding to its charge, the panel chose a two-part approach intended to
produce a report that would speak to all members of the U.S. scientific research
community. First, the panel examined factors fundamental to the integrity of the
research process, including scientific principles and research practices; changes
within the contemporary research environment; and the roles of individuals,
educational programs, and research guidelines in fostering responsible research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

practices. Second, the panel considered the incidence and significance of

misconduct in science and also examined institutional approaches to handling
allegations of misconduct, analyzing in addition the complex problems associated
with responding to such allegations.
The panel chose this approach to emphasize positive steps that might be
taken to assure the integrity of the research process in the current environment.
Although many organizations are absorbed with responding to the problem of
misconduct in science, institutional experience with recently adopted regulatory
requirements is very new, and there is not yet a clear consensus about procedural
approaches that may be necessary to address allegations of misconduct.11 The
panel did not attempt to resolve all of these matters in this report. At the same
time, its selected approach is not intended to diminish the importance of related
problems such as conflict of interest, the allocation of indirect costs, or federal
support for scientific research, but rather to reflect the panel's judgment that
integrity in the research process itself and issues arising from misconduct in
science deserve critical examination and consideration on their own merits.
Although this report addresses concerns that affect the entire U.S. scientific
community, the members of the panel were obliged to generalize from their own
particular specialized expertise and experience. Unfortunately, it was not possible
to develop a detailed description of the diverse styles and approaches of the
various scientific disciplines, a description that might have conveyed the
richness, spirit, and disciplinary differences that characterize U.S. science. The
panel recognizes this limitation but believes that a general approach will guide
specific interpretations and applications. This report should therefore be viewed
as part of a comprehensive dialogue on and examination of integrity in the
research process.
Finally, the panel emphasizes that this report speaks to all members of the
scientific community, regardless of their institutional affiliation, whose research
results become part of the scientific process. Although this report is addressed
principally to an academic audience, the panel believes that the discussions,
findings, and recommendations also have relevance for nonacademic research
groups, including those in industry, and particularly those engaged in clinical
trials and drug toxicology studies, as well as others whose members report
research results at scientific meetings and publish in journals. Officials at research
institutions also are responsible for taking educational, preventive, and remedial
approaches to dealing with scientific conduct issues. All who participate in the
research enterprise share responsibility for the integrity of the research process.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

METHODS, DEFINITIONS, AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

Evaluating Available Data
The panel sought to develop a report that would address conflicting
perspectives and priorities basic to enhancing integrity in the research process. An
examination of empirical studies on research behaviors yielded few significant
insights.12
The panel also concluded that existing social studies of the U.S. scientific
research enterprise are not adequate to support conclusions about the relative
effectiveness of various alternatives for fostering the integrity of the research
process. For example, the value of formal and informal educational approaches in
fostering responsible research practices has, to the panel's knowledge, not been
systematically addressed. And although some research institutions in recent years
have adopted formal guidelines designed to foster responsible practices, the
experience with research guidelines is limited.13
The panel also found barriers to obtaining data on specific incidents of
misconduct. Confidential institutional reports are not available if misconduct
cases are under appeal or are subject to litigation, if the institutions have
negotiated private settlements with the subjects of misconduct complaints, if there
are findings of no misconduct, or if the misconduct has been judged to be not
significant enough to warrant penalties. Those involved in handling or evaluating
misconduct cases are usually not at liberty to discuss their findings. Those who
have been parties at interest in misconduct cases may have a biased view of
specific actions. An increasing amount of litigation in misconduct cases has
further complicated the collection and analysis of primary data.
Thus many of the panel's findings and recommendations are derived from
informed judgments based on discussions with persons knowledgeable about the
research process and about factors that affect the contemporary research
environment. The panel also met with individuals who have both knowledge of
and a broad range of perspectives on the significance of the reported cases of
misconduct in science. The panel's overall outlook and opinions are based on
general ethical principles that are well accepted by scientists and by society.
Defining TermsArticulating a Framework for Fostering
Responsible Research Conduct
In the opening paragraphs of this chapter, the panel defined the term
''integrity of the research process" as the adherence by scientists

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

and their institutions to honest and verifiable methods in proposing, performing,

evaluating, and reporting research activities. This term is sometimes thought to be
synonymous with "integrity of science," but the terms of reference are different.14
Science is not only a body of information, composed of current knowledge,
theories, and observations, but also the process by which this body of knowledge
is developed. Furthermore, the scientific process is a social enterprise that
involves individuals and institutions engaged in developing, certifying, and
communicating research results. Throughout this report the panel focuses on the
integrity of the research process as defined above.
Misconduct in science is commonly referred to as fraud.15 But most legal
interpretations of the term "fraud" require evidence not only of intentional
deception but also of injury or damage to victims. Proof of fraud in common law
requires documentation of damage incurred by victims who relied on fabricated
or falsified research results. Because this evidentiary standard seemed poorly
suited to the methods of scientific research, "misconduct in science" has become
the common term of reference in both institutional and regulatory policy
definitions.
However, "misconduct in science" as commonly used is an amorphous term,
often covering a spectrum of both significant and trivial forms of misbehavior by
scientists. The absence of a clear, explicit definition that focuses on actions highly
detrimental to the integrity of the research process has impeded the development
of effective institutional oversight and government policies and procedures
designed to respond to such actions. Varying definitions of misconduct in science
have also impeded comparison of the results of survey studies. If, for example,
survey respondents apply the term "misconduct in science" to a broad range of
behaviors that extend beyond legal or institutional definitions, their responses
weaken the significance of reported survey results.
In order to provide policy guidance for scientists, research institutions, and
government research agencies concerned about ensuring the integrity of the
research process as well as addressing misconduct in science, the panel developed
a framework that delineates three categories of behaviors in the research
environment that require attention. These categories are (1) misconduct in
science, (2) questionable research practices, and (3) other misconduct.
The panel seeks to accomplish several goals by proposing these three
categories. Foremost is a precise definition of misconduct in science aimed at
identifying behaviors that scientists agree seriously damage the integrity of the
research process. For example, although

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

using inadequate training methods or refusing to share research data or reagents

are not desirable, such actions generally are regarded as behaviors that are not
comparable to the fabrication of research data. In the same manner, sexual
harassment and financial mismanagement are illegal behaviors regardless of
whether scientists are involved, but these actions are different from misconduct in
science because they do not compromise, in a direct manner, the integrity of the
research process.
Unethical actions of all types are intolerable, and appropriate actions by the
research community to address such problems are essential. But the panel
believes that there are risks inherent in developing institutional policies,
procedures, and programs that treat all of these behaviors without distinction.
Inappropriate actions by government and institutional officials can create an
atmosphere that disturbs effective methods of self-regulation and harms
pioneering research activities. In particular, many scientists are concerned that the
term "misconduct in science," which has been construed as including "serious
deviations from accepted practices" (as currently defined in government
regulations), could be defined in such a way that it could be applied
inappropriately to the activities of honest scientists engaged in creative research
efforts.
The panel recognizes that this framework may not satisfy all scientists,
lawyers, or policymakers. Its primary purpose is to advance the quality of policy
and educational discussions about distinctions between different kinds of
troubling behavior within the research environment, and to allow scientists,
institutional officers, and public officials to focus their attention and their efforts
toward prevention on substantive issues rather than discrepancies in terminology.
Thus the framework of definitions proposed in this report should be viewed as a
tool for use in a sustained effort by the research community to strengthen the
integrity of the research process, to promote responsible research conduct, and to
clarify appropriate methods to address instances of misconduct in science. The
three categories will need to be refined through continued dialogue, criticism, and
experience.
In developing its framework of definitions, the panel adopted an approach
that evaluates how seriously the various behaviors compromise the integrity of
the research process. The panel also considered other criteria, such as intent to
deceive. The panel concluded that while intention is important, especially in the
adjudication of allegations of misconduct in science, intention is often hard to
establish and does not provide, by itself, an adequate basis for separating actions
that seriously damage the integrity of the research process from questionable
research practices or other misconduct.16 17

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

Misconduct in Science
Misconduct in science is defined as fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research. Misconduct in
science does not include errors of judgment; errors in the recording,
selection, or analysis of data; differences in opinions involving the
interpretation of data; or misconduct unrelated to the research process.
Fabrication is making up data or results, falsification is changing data or
results, and plagiarism is using the ideas or words of another person without
giving appropriate credit.
By proposing this precise definition of misconduct in science, the panel is in
unanimous agreement that the core of the definition of misconduct in science
should consist of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. The panel
unanimously rejects ambiguous language such as the category "other serious
deviations from accepted research practices" currently included in regulatory
definitions adopted by the Public Health Service and the National Science
Foundation (DHHS, 1989a; NSF, 1991b). Although government officials have
often relied on scientific panels to define "other serious deviations," the
vagueness of this category has led to confusion about which actions constitute
misconduct in science. In particular, the panel wishes to discourage the possibility
that a misconduct complaint could be lodged against scientists based solely on
their use of novel or unorthodox research methods. The use of ambiguous terms
in regulatory definitions invites exactly such an overexpansive interpretation.
In rejecting the "other serious deviations" category, the panel considered
whether a different measure of flexibility should be included in its proposed
definition of misconduct in science, so as to allow the imposition of sanctions for
conduct similar in character to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Some
panel members believe that the definition should also encompass other actions
that directly damage the integrity of the research process and that are undertaken
with the intent to deceive. For example, misuse of the peer-review system to
penalize competitors, deceptive selection of data or statistical analysis, or
encouragement of trainees to practice misconduct in science might not always
constitute a form of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Yet such actions
could, in some circumstances, damage the integrity of the research process
sufficiently to constitute misconduct in science.
All members of the panel support the basic definition of misconduct in
science proposed above, but the panel did not reach final consensus on whether
additional flexibility was needed to address as

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

misconduct in science other practices of an egregious character similar to

fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. These issues deserve further
consideration by the scientific research community to determine whether the
panel's definition of misconduct in science is flexible enough to include all or
most actions that directly damage the integrity of the research process and that
were undertaken with the intent to deceive.
Questionable Research Practices
Questionable research practices are actions that violate traditional
values of the research enterprise and that may be detrimental to the research
process. However, there is at present neither broad agreement as to the
seriousness of these actions nor any consensus on standards for behavior in
such matters. Questionable research practices do not directly damage the
integrity of the research process and thus do not meet the panel's criteria for
inclusion in the definition of misconduct in science. However, they deserve
attention because they can erode confidence in the integrity of the research
process, violate traditions associated with science, affect scientific conclusions,
waste time and resources, and weaken the education of new scientists.
Questionable research practices include activities such as the following:
Failing to retain significant research data for a reasonable period;
Maintaining inadequate research records, especially for results that are
published or are relied on by others;
Conferring or requesting authorship on the basis of a specialized service
or contribution that is not significantly related to the research reported in
the paper;18
Refusing to give peers reasonable access to unique research materials or
data that support published papers;
Using inappropriate statistical or other methods of measurement to
enhance the significance of research findings;19
Inadequately supervising research subordinates or exploiting them; and
Misrepresenting speculations as fact or releasing preliminary research
results, especially in the public media, without providing sufficient data
to allow peers to judge the validity of the results or to reproduce the
experiments.
The panel wishes to make a clear demarcation between misconduct in
science and questionable research practicesthe two categories

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

are not equivalent, and they require different types of responses by the research
community and research institutions. However, the relationship between these
two categories is not well understood. It may be difficult to tell, initially, whether
alleged misconduct constitutes misconduct in science or a questionable research
practice. In some cases, for example, scientists accused of plagiarism have
testified about an absence of appropriate training methods for properly citing the
work of others. The selective use of research data is another area where the
boundary between fabrication and creative insight may not be obvious.
The panel emphasizes that scientists, individually and collectively, need to
take questionable research practices seriously because when tolerated, such
practices can encourage an environment that fosters misconduct in science. But
questionable practices are not equivalent to misconduct in science, and they are
not appropriate subjects for investigations directed to misconduct.
Other Misconduct
Certain forms of unacceptable behavior are clearly not unique to the conduct
of science, although they may occur in a laboratory or research environment.
Such behaviors, which are subject to generally applicable legal and social
penalties, include actions such as sexual and other forms of harassment of
individuals; misuse of funds; gross negligence by persons in their professional
activities; vandalism, including tampering with research experiments or
instrumentation; 20 and violations of government research regulations, such as
those dealing with radioactive materials, recombinant DNA research, and the use
of human or animal subjects. Industry-university relationships, and the resultant
possibility of conflicts of interest, also raise issues that require special attention.
In these cases, recognized legal and institutional procedures should be in
place to address complaints and to discourage behavior involving forms of
misconduct that are not unique to the research process. Allegations of
harassment, for example, should be handled by officials designated to implement
personnel or equal opportunity regulations. Allegations of misuse of research
funds should be addressed by those responsible for the financial integrity of the
research institutions involved. The panel concluded that such behaviors require
serious attention but lie outside the scope of the charge for this study.
On some occasions, however, certain forms of "other misconduct" are
directly associated with misconduct in science. Among these are cover-ups of
misconduct in science, reprisals against whistle-blowers,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

malicious allegations of misconduct in science, and violations of due process

protections in handling complaints of misconduct in science. These forms of
other misconduct may require action and special administrative procedures (see
Chapter 5 for further discussion).
Understanding Causes and Evaluating Cures
The causes of misconduct in science are undoubtedly diverse and complex.
Individual scientists, institutional officials, and scholars in the social studies of
science over the past decade have suggested that various factors lead to or
encourage misconduct in science, but the influence of any individual factor or
combination of suggested factors has not been examined systematically.
Two alternate, possibly complementary, hypotheses have been advanced for
considering the causes of misconduct in science and formulating methods for
prevention and treatment. Many observers have explained the problem of
misconduct in science as one that results primarily from character or personality
flaws, from environmental stimuli in the research system, or from some
interaction of both:21
1.

Misconduct in science is the result of individual pathology .

Misconduct in science is commonly viewed as the action of a
psychologically disturbed individual. An analysis by Bechtel and
Pearson (1985) of 12 cases of deviant behavior reported in the 1970s
and early 1980s supported the hypothesis that scientists who engage
in deviant behavior are commonly individuals who operate alone and
who conceal their misconduct.22
2. Factors in the modern research environment contribute to
misconduct in science. But although the "bad person" approach to
explaining deviant behavior in science has had strong support within
the scientific community, Bechtel and Pearson and others have
questioned whether this hypothesis alone adequately explains the
phenomenon of misconduct in science.
A broad range of factors in the research environment have been suggested as
possible causes of misconduct in science. Such factors include (a) funding and
career pressures of the contemporary research environment (such as the pressure
to publish; NSB, 1988); (b) inadequate institutional oversight; (c) inappropriate
forms of collaborative arrangements between academic scientists and
commercial firms; (d) inadequate training in the methods and traditions of
science;23 (e) the increasing scale and complexity of the research environment,
leading to the erosion of peer review, mentorship, and educational processes in
science; and (f) the possibility that misconduct in science

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

is an expression of a broader social pattern of deviation from traditional norms. In

addition, it has been noted that some areas of research, such as biological and
clinical research, do not yet proceed from explicit scientific laws and also make
extensive use of empirical observations not related to theory. Moreover, the
characteristics of certain research materials in these fields inhibit the replication
of research findings as a vehicle for self-correction.
The panel has reviewed various suggestions about possible causes of
misconduct in science but makes no judgment about the significance of any one
factor. The panel believes that speculations about individual pathology or about
environmental factors as the primary causes have not been verified; misconduct in
science is probably the result of a complicated interaction of psychological and
environmental factors. Moreover, although one or more such factors may
contribute to specific cases of misconduct in science, the panel has not discerned a
broad trend that would highlight any single factor as a clear generic cause.
Regardless of the causes of deviant behavior, the panel is concerned that
some "cures" for misconduct in science would damage the research process
itself. The uncertainty of evidence about external factors as causes means that
recommending policy solutions for treating and preventing the problem of
misconduct in science is problematic. As a result, efforts to foster integrity in the
research process and to reduce the occurrence of misconduct in science should be
evaluated systematically to identify steps that prove to be effective. A range of
possible steps is discussed in the following chapters.
Starting from Logical Assumptions
The integrity of the research process has sometimes been called into question
by sensationalized reports about specific cases of misconduct in science.24 But
because misconduct in science seems infrequent, many scientists have suggested
that it does not present a serious problem. According to this view, when
misconduct occurs in an important field of research, incorrect information will be
corrected or eventually replaced by correct results through the work of others.
The panel agrees that confirmed cases of misconduct in science are rare.
Nevertheless, the panel believes that every case of misconduct in science is
serious and requires action for the following reasons:
1. Misconduct is wrong. One can object to misconduct in science simply
on ethical grounds, since it often involves actions that betray
personal and public trust and the search for truth. Misconduct in

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

science, if not properly addressed, can undermine the reasons for

doing and supporting science itself.
Misconduct in science wastes time and resources. Misconduct can
mislead scientists and waste the efforts of those who try to build on
reported results. It requires substantial effort to correct false claims.
Plagiarism can discourage scientists who see their contributions
stolen or misrepresented by others and can damage honest
reputations and the intellectual audit trail that affects the history of
science.
Misconduct can lead to injuries and harmful consequences.
Significant harm can result if false claims influence public health or
technical or political decisions. Although mechanisms of selfcorrection may expose false claims, they are not designed to detect
or deter misconduct in science. False information relating to medical
procedures, for example, may lead to mistreatment of patients.
Falsehoods should be publicly corrected, as soon as possible, to
prevent such damage. We should not wait for the slow corrective
action of further research. Similar comments apply in other areas of
science in which false reports may have adverse practical
consequences.
The time interval between the release and application of initial
research reports in medical treatment, commercial products,
services, and public policy decisions is diminishing. Resources for
replicative research may not be available in some areas of research.
Thus correction of research results, through replicative or related
research efforts, is not a panacea; neither is it always timely.
Misconduct by scientists, and weak institutional responses to these
incidents, can lead to counter-productive regulation and control. The
image of scientists cheating in their laboratories is deeply disturbing
to scientists themselves and to members of the public who have
generally held scientists in high esteem. Even a few well-publicized
cases of misconduct in science, particularly when such cases involve
prominent individuals at respected institutions, have stimulated legal
and administrative demands for accountability that divert funds and
attention from scholarly purposes, interfere with the traditional
autonomy granted to science, and malign the status of reputable
scientists and their institutions.
Misconduct in science can undermine public support of science .
Misconduct is one part of a larger public examination of scientific
and educational institutions. Public confidence in the methods by
which scientists maintain the integrity of the research process can be
eroded when misconduct occurs in a social environment that is
already disturbed by, for example, reports of misuse of the indirect
costs associated with research funds, and other behaviors that violate
public trust.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

On the basis of these assumptions, the panel concluded that actions designed
both to foster the integrity of the research process and to respond to misconduct in
science are both timely and warranted.
NOTES
1. The values that characterize science are discussed in National Academy of Sciences (1989).
2. See, for example, further discussion on the ethos of science as described in Chapter 12 in Holton
(1988). See also Sigma Xi (1986).
3. For a review of the impact of the contemporary research environment on the ethos of science, see
Hoshiko (1991).
4. Government funding for U.S. basic research increased in current dollars from $5.4 billion in FY
1982 to an estimated $12.5 billion in FY 1991. See p. 53 in American Association for the
Advancement of Science (1991a).
Academic research investigators are also increasingly supported by nonfederal funds provided by a
diverse mix of industrial sponsors, state, and local funds, foundations, and intramural support.
For example, the industrial share of academic R&D funding grew from 3.9 percent in 1980 to an
estimated 6.6 percent in 1989. Some specialized academic research centers now receive over 20
percent of their funding from industry. See p. 106 in National Science Board (1989).
5. These factors include competitive pressures to publish, increasing competition for funds, secrecy in
research performance, and inadequate interaction of young researchers with their peers and mentors.
See Institute of Medicine (1989a).
6. See, for example, the following statement of Rep. John Dingell: "We are directing our efforts to
seeing to it that NIH is able to function efficiently, well, honorably and competently in the public
interest. We expect them to do that with full attention to their responsibilities to the taxpayers, as well
as their duties towards the achievement of good science" (U.S. Congress, 1990c, p. 4).
7. As noted in On Being a Scientist (NAS, 1989), Alexander Kohn (1986) presents several case
studies of fraud and self-deception from the history of science and medicine. A more popularly
written and controversial history of misconduct in science is presented in Broad and Wade (1982).
Individual case histories have been reported in various journals and in newspaper accounts. See,
for example, a summary of the controversy surrounding William Summerlin in McBride (1974)
and an account of the Long, Soman, Alsabti, Straus, and Burt cases in Broad (1981).
8. See, for example, the cases described by Mazur (1989). See also the discussions in congressional
oversight hearings (including U.S. Congress, 1981a; 1988a,b,c).
9. The term "allegation" here refers to complaints of misconduct in science that have resulted in a
government case file. An analysis of these allegations is provided in Chapter 4. As of December
1991, about half of these allegations had been resolved.
10. Health Research Extension Act of 1985, P.L. 100-504, 99 Stat. 820 (1985).
11. See, for example, the reports resulting from three workshops sponsored by the National
Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, American Association for the Advancement of Science and the
American Bar Association (AAAS-ABA, 1989).
12. Some good examples of studies of scientific practice and the social organization of science
include Traweek (1988), Hull (1988), Latour (1987), Latour and Woolgar (1979), Hackett and Chubin
(1990), and Hackett (1990).
13. It is the panel's hope that the base of knowledge will be augmented by additional

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

data derived from systematic evaluation of experiences in fostering responsible research practices.
See also in Volume II of this report the background paper on this topic prepared for the panel by
Nicholas Steneck.
14. A discussion of the dimensions of integrity in science is included in chapters 1 and 12 in Holton
(1988).
15. Discussions focused initially on ''scientific fraud" but encountered difficulties with the legal
definition of the word "fraud." Government regulations and institutional policies have adopted terms
such as "research misconduct," "scientific misconduct," and "misconduct in science," but these terms
are subject to a variety of interpretations.
For early discussions about the relationship between fraud and misconduct in science, see Andersen
(1988). See also the discussion on "fraud" and "misconduct" on p. 32447 in Department of Health and
Human Services (1989a).
Some scientists object to the terms "scientific fraud" or "misconduct in science" because the
fabrication and falsification of research results are deceptive acts that are not in themselves science.
However, the social, political, and legal framework in which scientists must operate requires that we
admit to the possibility of deliberate falsehoods that may masquerade as science.
16. Some institutional policies make intention or deception an explicit part of their definition of
misconduct in science, whereas other policies assume, implicitly, that intention is part of the common
understanding of actions, such as falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism, that constitute misconduct
in science. See, for example, the definitions in the policies for addressing allegations of misconduct in
science included in Volume II of this report.
17. Another approach considered by the panel in defining behaviors that violate the integrity of the
research process was to deal only with misconduct in science and questionable research practices and
to omit "other misconduct" as a category for a framework of definitions. Although the panel chose to
focus on behaviors that directly compromise the integrity of the research process, it also wanted to
recognize the public dimensions of discussions about misconduct in science. Thus the panel
concluded that issues such as conflict of interest, mismanagement of funds, and the harassment of
colleagues on the basis of race or gender must necessarily be recognized in a framework of
definitions intended to categorize behavior that adversely affects the conduct of scientific research.
These forms of "other misconduct" deserve serious and sustained analysis on their own merits, but
such an examination was beyond the resources and scope of this particular study.
18. It is possible that some extreme cases of noncontributing authorship may be regarded as
misconduct in science because they constitute a form of falsification. These would include only cases
in which an individual who has made no identifiable contribution to a research paper is named, or
seeks to be named, as a co-author.
19. See Bailar (1986).
20. The fourth report of the NSF inspector general (NSF, 1991a) describes a misconduct case
involving tampering with other researchers' experiments. This type of case would not constitute
misconduct in science under the panel's definition. An allegation of this type of incident should be
addressed under regulations governing vandalism or destruction of property.
21. As noted in Bechtel and Pearson (1985), several leading figures in the scientific community have
advocated the "disturbed individual" theory.
For discussions of the impact of reward systems and social controls on deviant behavior in
science, see the analysis by Zuckerman (1977). For a historical perspective, see Gaston (1978).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INTRODUCTION

22. The authors concluded that the deviant behavior in these cases, usually faking scientific
experiments and data, was displayed by single individuals who acted alone. They observed that many
of these individuals held positions of high social status and respectability within their professions and
that the scientists involved also made elaborate efforts to conceal their illegitimate behavior.
23. It has been suggested that research physicians whose sole degree is an M.D. have not been
adequately exposed to the scientific methods and skills that are the foundation of a Ph.D. program.
24. See Broad and Wade (1982).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

2
Scientific Principles and Research Practices

Until the past decade, scientists, research institutions, and government

agencies relied solely on a system of self-regulation based on shared ethical
principles and generally accepted research practices to ensure integrity in the
research process. Among the very basic principles that guide scientists, as well as
many other scholars, are those expressed as respect for the integrity of
knowledge, collegiality, honesty, objectivity, and openness. These principles are
at work in the fundamental elements of the scientific method, such as formulating a
hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and collecting and
interpreting data. In addition, more particular principles characteristic of specific
scientific disciplines influence the methods of observation; the acquisition,
storage, management, and sharing of data; the communication of scientific
knowledge and information; and the training of younger scientists.1 How these
principles are applied varies considerably among the several scientific
disciplines, different research organizations, and individual investigators.
The basic and particular principles that guide scientific research practices
exist primarily in an unwritten code of ethics. Although some have proposed that
these principles should be written down and formalized,2 the principles and
traditions of science are, for the most part, conveyed to successive generations of
scientists through example, discussion, and informal education. As was pointed
out in an early Academy report on responsible conduct of research in the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

health sciences, "a variety of informal and formal practices and procedures
currently exist in the academic research environment to assure and maintain the
high quality of research conduct" (IOM, 1989a, p. 18).
Physicist Richard Feynman invoked the informal approach to
communicating the basic principles of science in his 1974 commencement
address at the California Institute of Technology (Feynman, 1985):
[There is an] idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in
schoolwe never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by
all the examples of scientific investigation. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a
principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honestya kind
of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you
should report everything that you think might make it invalidnot only what
you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results;
and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and
how they workedto make sure the other fellow can tell they have been
eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know
them. You must do the best you canif you know anything at all wrong, or
possibly wrongto explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise
it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as
well as those that agree with it. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the
information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (pp.
311-312)

Many scholars have noted the implicit nature and informal character of the
processes that often guide scientific research practices and inference.3 Research in
well-established fields of scientific knowledge, guided by commonly accepted
theoretical paradigms and experimental methods, involves few disagreements
about what is recognized as sound scientific evidence. Even in a revolutionary
scientific field like molecular biology, students and trainees have learned the
basic principles governing judgments made in such standardized procedures as
cloning a new gene and determining its sequence.
In evaluating practices that guide research endeavors, it is important to
consider the individual character of scientific fields. Research fields that yield
highly replicable results, such as ordinary organic chemical structures, are quite
different from fields such as cellular immunology, which are in a much earlier
stage of development and accumulate much erroneous or uninterpretable material
before the pieces fit together coherently. When a research field is too new or

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

In broadest terms, scientists seek a systematic organization of
knowledge about the universe and its parts. This knowledge is based on
explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by
independent observers. Science encompasses a large body of evidence
collected by repeated observations and experiments. Although its goal is to
approach true explanations as closely as possible, its investigators claim no
final or permanent explanatory truths. Science changes. It evolves.
Verifiable facts always take precedence.
Scientists operate within a system designed for continuous testing,
where corrections and new findings are announced in refereed scientific
publications. The task of systematizing and extending the understanding of
the universe is advanced by eliminating disproved ideas and by formulating
new tests of others until one emerges as the most probable explanation for
any given observed phenomenon. This is called the scientific method.
An idea that has not yet been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis.
Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual
evidence. Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science. If no
verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis
one that is not fruitful; such hypotheses fail to stimulate research and are
unlikely to advance scientific knowledge.
A fruitful hypothesis may develop into a theory after substantial
observational or experimental support has accumulated. When a hypothesis
has survived repeated opportunities for disproof and when competing
hypotheses have been eliminated as a result of failure to produce the
predicted consequences, that hypothesis may become the accepted theory
explaining the original facts.
Scientific theories are also predictive. They allow us to anticipate yet
unknown phenomena and thus to focus research on more narrowly defined
areas. If the results of testing agree with predictions from a theory, the
theory is provisionally corroborated. If not, it is proved false and must be
either abandoned or modified to account for the inconsistency.
Scientific theories, therefore, are accepted only provisionally. It is
always possible that a theory that has withstood previous testing may
eventually be disproved. But as theories survive more tests, they are
regarded with higher levels of confidence.
In science, then, facts are determined by observation or measurement
of natural or experimental phenomena. A hypothesis is a proposed
explanation of those facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained wide
acceptance because it has survived rigorous investigation of its predictions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

science accommodates, indeed welcomes, new discoveries: its

theories change and its activities broaden as new facts come to light or new
potentials are recognized. Examples of events changing scientific thought
are legion. Truly scientific understanding cannot be attained or even
pursued effectively when explanations not derived from or tested by the
scientific method are accepted.
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences and National Research
Council (1984), pp. 8-11.

too fragmented to support consensual paradigms or established methods,

different scientific practices can emerge.
A well-established discipline can also experience profound changes during
periods of new conceptual insights. In these moments, when scientists must cope
with shifting concepts, the matter of what counts as scientific evidence can be
subject to dispute. Historian Jan Sapp has described the complex interplay
between theory and observation that characterizes the operation of scientific
judgment in the selection of research data during revolutionary periods of
paradigmatic shift (Sapp, 1990, p. 113):
What "liberties" scientists are allowed in selecting positive data and omitting
conflicting or "messy" data from their reports is not defined by any timeless
method. It is a matter of negotiation. It is learned, acquired socially; scientists
make judgments about what fellow scientists might expect in order to be
convincing. What counts as good evidence may be more or less well-defined
after a new discipline or specialty is formed; however, at revolutionary stages in
science, when new theories and techniques are being put forward, when
standards have yet to be negotiated, scientists are less certain as to what others
may require of them to be deemed competent and convincing.

Explicit statements of the values and traditions that guide research practice
have evolved through the disciplines and have been given in textbooks on
scientific methodologies.4 In the past few decades, many scientific and
engineering societies representing individual disciplines have also adopted codes
of ethics (see Volume II of this report for examples),5 and more recently, a few
research institutions have developed guidelines for the conduct of research (see
Chapter 6).
But the responsibilities of the research community and research institutions
in assuring individual compliance with scientific principles, traditions, and codes
of ethics are not well defined. In recent

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

years, the absence of formal statements by research institutions of the principles

that should guide research conducted by their members has prompted criticism
that scientists and their institutions lack a clearly identifiable means to ensure the
integrity of the research process.
FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH
PRACTICES
In all of science, but with unequal emphasis in the several disciplines,
inquiry proceeds based on observation and experimentation, the exercising of
informed judgment, and the development of theory. Research practices are
influenced by a variety of factors, including:
1. The general norms of science;
2. The nature of particular scientific disciplines and the traditions of
organizing a specific body of scientific knowledge;
3. The example of individual scientists, particularly those who hold
positions of authority or respect based on scientific achievements;
4. The policies and procedures of research institutions and funding
agencies; and
5. Socially determined expectations.
The first three factors have been important in the evolution of modern
science. The latter two have acquired more importance in recent times.
Norms of Science
As members of a professional group, scientists share a set of common
values, aspirations, training, and work experiences.6 Scientists are distinguished
from other groups by their beliefs about the kinds of relationships that should
exist among them, about the obligations incurred by members of their profession,
and about their role in society. A set of general norms are imbedded in the
methods and the disciplines of science that guide individual scientists in the
organization and performance of their research efforts and that also provide a
basis for nonscientists to understand and evaluate the performance of scientists.
But there is uncertainty about the extent to which individual scientists adhere
to such norms. Most social scientists conclude that all behavior is influenced to
some degree by norms that reflect socially or morally supported patterns of
preference when alternative courses of action are possible. However, perfect
conformity with any relevant

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

set of norms is always lacking for a variety of reasons: the existence of competing
norms, constraints and obstacles in organizational or group settings, and
personality factors. The strength of these influences, and the circumstances that
may affect them, are not well understood.
In a classic statement of the importance of scientific norms, Robert Merton
specified four norms as essential for the effective functioning of science:
communism (by which Merton meant the communal sharing of ideas and
findings), universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism (Merton,
1973). Neither Merton nor other sociologists of science have provided solid
empirical evidence for the degree of influence of these norms in a representative
sample of scientists. In opposition to Merton, a British sociologist of science,
Michael Mulkay, has argued that these norms are "ideological" covers for selfinterested behavior that reflects status and politics (Mulkay, 1975). And the
British physicist and sociologist of science John Ziman, in an article synthesizing
critiques of Merton's formulation, has specified a set of structural factors in the
bureaucratic and corporate research environment that impede the realization of
that particular set of norms: the proprietary nature of research, the local
importance and funding of research, the authoritarian role of the research
manager, commissioned research, and the required expertise in understanding
how to use modern instruments (Ziman, 1990).
It is clear that the specific influence of norms on the development of
scientific research practices is simply not known and that further study of key
determinants is required, both theoretically and empirically. Commonsense
views, ideologies, and anecdotes will not support a conclusive appraisal.
Individual Scientific Disciplines
Science comprises individual disciplines that reflect historical developments
and the organization of natural and social phenomena for study. Social scientists
may have methods for recording research data that differ from the methods of
biologists, and scientists who depend on complex instrumentation may have
authorship practices different from those of scientists who work in small groups
or carry out field studies. Even within a discipline, experimentalists engage in
research practices that differ from the procedures followed by theorists.
Disciplines are the "building blocks of science," and they "designate the
theories, problems, procedures, and solutions that are prescribed, proscribed,
permitted, and preferred" (Zuckerman, 1988a,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

p. 520). The disciplines have traditionally provided the vital connections between
scientific knowledge and its social organization. Scientific societies and scientific
journals, some of which have tens of thousands of members and readers, and the
peer review processes used by journals and research sponsors are visible forms of
the social organization of the disciplines.
The power of the disciplines to shape research practices and standards is
derived from their ability to provide a common frame of reference in evaluating
the significance of new discoveries and theories in science. It is the members of a
discipline, for example, who determine what is "good biology" or "good physics"
by examining the implications of new research results. The disciplines' abilities to
influence research standards are affected by the subjective quality of peer review
and the extent to which factors other than disciplinary quality may affect
judgments about scientific achievements. Disciplinary departments rely primarily
on informal social and professional controls to promote responsible behavior and
to penalize deviant behavior. These controls, such as social ostracism, the denial
of letters of support for future employment, and the withholding of research
resources, can deter and penalize unprofessional behavior within research
institutions. 7
Many scientific societies representing individual disciplines have adopted
explicit standards in the form of codes of ethics or guidelines governing, for
example, the editorial practices of their journals and other publications.8 Many
societies have also established procedures for enforcing their standards. In the
past decade, the societies' codes of ethicswhich historically have been
exhortations to uphold high standards of professional behaviorhave
incorporated specific guidelines relevant to authorship practices, data
management, training and mentoring, conflict of interest, reporting research
findings, treatment of confidential or proprietary information, and addressing
error or misconduct.
The Role of Individual Scientists and Research Teams
The methods by which individual scientists and students are socialized in the
principles and traditions of science are poorly understood. The principles of
science and the practices of the disciplines are transmitted by scientists in
classroom settings and, perhaps more importantly, in research groups and teams.
The social setting of the research group is a strong and valuable characteristic of
American science and education. The dynamics of research groups can fosteror
inhibitinnovation, creativity, education, and collaboration.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

One author of a historical study of research groups in the chemical and

biochemical sciences has observed that the laboratory director or group leader is
the primary determinant of a group's practices (Fruton, 1990). Individuals in
positions of authority are visible and are also influential in determining funding
and other support for the career paths of their associates and students. Research
directors and department chairs, by virtue of personal example, thus can
reinforce, or weaken, the power of disciplinary standards and scientific norms to
affect research practices.
To the extent that the behavior of senior scientists conforms with general
expectations for appropriate scientific and disciplinary practice, the research
system is coherent and mutually reinforcing. When the behavior of research
directors or department chairs diverges from expectations for good practice,
however, the expected norms of science become ambiguous, and their effects are
thus weakened. Thus personal example and the perceived behavior of role models
and leaders in the research community can be powerful stimuli in shaping the
research practices of colleagues, associates, and students.
The role of individuals in influencing research practices can vary by research
field, institution, or time. The standards and expectations for behavior
exemplified by scientists who are highly regarded for their technical competence
or creative insight may have greater influence than the standards of others.
Individual and group behaviors may also be more influential in times of
uncertainty and change in science, especially when new scientific theories,
paradigms, or institutional relationships are being established.
Institutional Policies
Universities, independent institutes, and government and industrial research
organizations create the environment in which research is done. As the recipients
of federal funds and the institutional sponsors of research activities,
administrative officers must comply with regulatory and legal requirements that
accompany public support. They are required, for example, "to foster a research
environment that discourages misconduct in all research and that deals
forthrightly with possible misconduct" (DHHS, 1989a, p. 32451).
Academic institutions traditionally have relied on their faculty to ensure that
appropriate scientific and disciplinary standards are maintained. A few
universities and other research institutions have also adopted policies or
guidelines to clarify the principles that their members are expected to observe in
the conduct of scientific research.9 In addition, as a result of several highly
publicized incidents of misconduct

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

in science and the subsequent enactment of governmental regulations, most major

research institutions have now adopted policies and procedures for handling
allegations of misconduct in science.
Institutional policies governing research practices can have a powerful
effect on research practices if they are commensurate with the norms that apply to a
wide spectrum of research investigators. In particular, the process of adopting and
implementing strong institutional policies can sensitize the members of those
institutions to the potential for ethical problems in their work. Institutional
policies can establish explicit standards that institutional officers then have the
power to enforce with sanctions and penalties.
Institutional policies are limited, however, in their ability to specify the
details of every problematic situation, and they can weaken or displace individual
professional judgment in such situations. Currently, academic institutions have
very few formal policies and programs in specific areas such as authorship,
communication and publication, and training and supervision.
Government Regulations and Policies
Government agencies have developed specific rules and procedures that
directly affect research practices in areas such as laboratory safety, the treatment
of human and animal research subjects, and the use of toxic or potentially
hazardous substances in research.
But policies and procedures adopted by some government research agencies
to address misconduct in science (see Chapter 5) represent a significant new
regulatory development in the relationships between research institutions and
government sponsors. The standards and criteria used to monitor institutional
compliance with an increasing number of government regulations and policies
affecting research practices have been a source of significant disagreement and
tension within the research community.
In recent years, some government research agencies have also adopted
policies and procedures for the treatment of research data and materials in their
extramural research programs. For example, the National Science Foundation
(NSF) has implemented a data-sharing policy through program management
actions, including proposal review and award negotiations and conditions. The
NSF policy acknowledges that grantee institutions will ''keep principal rights to
intellectual property conceived under NSF sponsorship" to encourage appropriate
commercialization of the results of research (NSF, 1989b, p. 1). However, the
NSF policy emphasizes "that retention of such rights does not reduce the
responsibility of researchers and institutions

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

to make results and supporting materials openly accessible" (p. 1).

In seeking to foster data sharing under federal grant awards, the government
relies extensively on the scientific traditions of openness and sharing. Research
agency officials have observed candidly that if the vast majority of scientists were
not so committed to openness and dissemination, government policy might
require more aggressive action. But the principles that have traditionally
characterized scientific inquiry can be difficult to maintain. For example, NSF
staff have commented, "Unless we can arrange real returns or incentives for the
original investigator, either in financial support or in professional recognition,
another researcher's request for sharing is likely to present itself as 'hassle'an
unwelcome nuisance and diversion. Therefore, we should hardly be surprised if
researchers display some reluctance to share in practice, however much they may
declare and genuinely feel devotion to the ideal of open scientific
communication" (NSF, 1989a, p. 4).
Social Attitudes and Expectations
Research scientists are part of a larger human society that has recently
experienced profound changes in attitudes about ethics, morality, and
accountability in business, the professions, and government. These attitudes have
included greater skepticism of the authority of experts and broader expectations
about the need for visible mechanisms to assure proper research practices,
especially in areas that affect the public welfare. Social attitudes are also having a
more direct influence on research practices as science achieves a more prominent
and public role in society. In particular, concern about waste, fraud, and abuse
involving government funds has emerged as a factor that now directly influences
the practices of the research community.
Varying historical and conceptual perspectives also can affect expectations
about standards of research practice. For example, some journalists have
criticized several prominent scientists, such as Mendel, Newton, and Millikan,
because they "cut corners in order to make their theories prevail" (Broad and
Wade, 1982, p. 35). The criticism suggests that all scientists at all times, in all
phases of their work, should be bound by identical standards.
Yet historical studies of the social context in which scientific knowledge has
been attained suggest that modern criticism of early scientific work often imposes
contemporary standards of objectivity and empiricism that have in fact been
developed in an evolutionary manner.10 Holton has argued, for example, that in
selecting data for

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

publication, Millikan exercised creative insight in excluding unreliable data

resulting from experimental error. But such practices, by today's standards, would
not be acceptable without reporting the justification for omission of recorded
data.
In the early stages of pioneering studies, particularly when fundamental
hypotheses are subject to change, scientists must be free to use creative judgment
in deciding which data are truly significant. In such moments, the standards of
proof may be quite different from those that apply at stages when confirmation
and consensus are sought from peers. Scientists must consistently guard against
self-deception, however, particularly when theoretical prejudices tend to
overwhelm the skepticism and objectivity basic to experimental practices.
In discussing "the theory-landenness of observations," Sapp (1990) observed
the fundamental paradox that can exist in determining the "appropriateness" of
data selection in certain experiments done in the past: scientists often craft their
experiments so that the scientific problems and research subjects conform closely
with the theory that they expect to verify or refute. Thus, in some cases, their
observations may come closer to theoretical expectations than what might be
statistically proper.
This source of bias may be acceptable when it is influenced by scientific
insight and judgment. But political, financial, or other sources of bias can corrupt
the process of data selection. In situations where both kinds of influence exist, it
is particularly important for scientists to be forthcoming about possible sources of
bias in the interpretation of research results. The coupling of science to other
social purposes in fostering economic growth and commercial technology
requires renewed vigilance to maintain acceptable standards for disclosure and
control of financial or competitive conflicts of interest and bias in the research
environment. The failure to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate
sources of bias in research practices can lead to erosion of public trust in the
autonomy of the research enterprise.
RESEARCH PRACTICES
In reviewing modern research practices for a range of disciplines, and
analyzing factors that could affect the integrity of the research process, the panel
focused on the following four areas:
1. Data handlingacquisition, management, and storage;
2. Communication and publication;

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

3. Correction of errors; and

4. Research training and mentorship.
Commonly understood practices operate in each area to promote responsible
research conduct; nevertheless, some questionable research practices also occur.
Some research institutions, scientific societies, and journals have established
policies to discourage questionable practices, but there is not yet a consensus on
how to treat violations of these policies.11 Furthermore, there is concern that some
questionable practices may be encouraged or stimulated by other institutional
factors. For example, promotion or appointment policies that stress quantity
rather than the quality of publications as a measure of productivity could
contribute to questionable practices.
Data Handling
Acquisition and Management
Scientific experiments and measurements are transformed into research
data. The term "research data" applies to many different forms of scientific
information, including raw numbers and field notes, machine tapes and
notebooks, edited and categorized observations, interpretations and analyses,
derived reagents and vectors, and tables, charts, slides, and photographs.
Research data are the basis for reporting discoveries and experimental
results. Scientists traditionally describe the methods used for an experiment,
along with appropriate calibrations, instrument types, the number of repeated
measurements, and particular conditions that may have led to the omission of
some data in the reported version. Standard procedures, innovations for particular
purposes, and judgments concerning the data are also reported. The general
standard of practice is to provide information that is sufficiently complete so that
another scientist can repeat or extend the experiment.
When a scientist communicates a set of results and a related piece of theory
or interpretation in any form (at a meeting, in a journal article, or in a book), it is
assumed that the research has been conducted as reported. It is a violation of the
most fundamental aspect of the scientific research process to set forth
measurements that have not, in fact, been performed (fabrication) or to ignore or
change relevant data that contradict the reported findings (falsification).
On occasion what is actually proper research practice may be confused with
misconduct in science. Thus, for example, applying scientific judgment to refine
data and to remove spurious results places

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

special responsibility on the researcher to avoid misrepresentation of findings.

Responsible practice requires that scientists disclose the basis for omitting or
modifying data in their analyses of research results, especially when such
omissions or modifications could alter the interpretation or significance of their
work.
In the last decade, the methods by which research scientists handle, store,
and provide access to research data have received increased scrutiny, owing to
conflicts over ownership, such as those described by Nelkin (1984); advances in
the methods and technologies that are used to collect, retain, and share data; and
the costs of data storage. More specific concerns have involved the profitability
associated with the patenting of science-based results in some fields and the need
to verify independently the accuracy of research results used in public or private
decision making. In resolving competing claims, the interests of individual
scientists and research institutions may not always coincide: researchers may be
willing to exchange scientific data of possible economic significance without
regard for financial or institutional implications, whereas their institutions may
wish to establish intellectual property rights and obligations prior to any
disclosure.
The general norms of science emphasize the principle of openness.
Scientists are generally expected to exchange research data as well as unique
research materials that are essential to the replication or extension of reported
findings. The 1985 report Sharing Research Data concluded that the general
principle of data sharing is widely accepted, especially in the behavioral and
social sciences (NRC, 1985). The report catalogued the benefits of data sharing,
including maintaining the integrity of the research process by providing
independent opportunities for verification, refutation, or refinement of original
results and data; promoting new research and the development and testing of new
theories; and encouraging appropriate use of empirical data in policy formulation
and evaluation. The same report examined obstacles to data sharing, which
include the criticism or competition that might be stimulated by data sharing;
technical barriers that may impede the exchange of computer-readable data; lack
of documentation of data sets; and the considerable costs of documentation,
duplication, and transfer of data.
The exchange of research data and reagents is ideally governed by principles
of collegiality and reciprocity: scientists often distribute reagents with the hope
that the recipient will reciprocate in the future, and some give materials out freely
with no stipulations attached. 12 Scientists who repeatedly or flagrantly deviate
from the tradition of sharing become known to their peers and may suffer

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

subtle forms of professional isolation. Such cases may be well known to senior
research investigators, but they are not well documented.
Some scientists may share materials as part of a collaborative agreement in
exchange for co-authorship on resulting publications. Some donors stipulate that
the shared materials are not to be used for applications already being pursued by
the donor's laboratory. Other stipulations include that the material not be passed
on to third parties without prior authorization, that the material not be used for
proprietary research, or that the donor receive prepublication copies of research
publications derived from the material. In some instances, so-called materials
transfer agreements are executed to specify the responsibilities of donor and
recipient. As more academic research is being supported under proprietary
agreements, researchers and institutions are experiencing the effects of these
arrangements on research practices.
Governmental support for research studies may raise fundamental questions
of ownership and rights of control, particularly when data are subsequently used
in proprietary efforts, public policy decisions, or litigation. Some federal research
agencies have adopted policies for data sharing to mitigate conflicts over issues
of ownership and access (NIH, 1987; NSF, 1989b).
Storage
Many research investigators store primary data in the laboratories in which
the data were initially derived, generally as electronic records or data sheets in
laboratory notebooks. For most academic laboratories, local customary practice
governs the storage (or discarding) of research data. Formal rules or guidelines
concerning their disposition are rare.
Many laboratories customarily store primary data for a set period (often 3 to 5
years) after they are initially collected. Data that support publications are usually
retained for a longer period than are those tangential to reported results. Some
research laboratories serve as the proprietor of data and data books that are under
the stewardship of the principal investigator. Others maintain that it is the
responsibility of the individuals who collected the data to retain proprietorship,
even if they leave the laboratory.
Concerns about misconduct in science have raised questions about the roles
of research investigators and of institutions in maintaining and providing access
to primary data. In some cases of alleged misconduct, the inability or
unwillingness of an investigator to provide

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

primary data or witnesses to support published reports sometimes has constituted

a presumption that the experiments were not conducted as reported.13
Furthermore, there is disagreement about the responsibilities of investigators to
provide access to raw data, particularly when the reported results have been
challenged by others. Many scientists believe that access should be restricted to
peers and colleagues, usually following publication of research results, to reduce
external demands on the time of the investigator. Others have suggested that raw
data supporting research reports should be accessible to any critic or competitor,
at any time, especially if the research is conducted with public funds. This topic,
in particular, could benefit from further research and systematic discussion to
clarify the rights and responsibilities of research investigators, institutions, and
sponsors.
Institutional policies have been developed to guide data storage practices in
some fields, often stimulated by desires to support the patenting of scientific
results and to provide documentation for resolving disputes over patent claims.
Laboratories concerned with patents usually have very strict rules concerning
data storage and note keeping, often requiring that notes be recorded in an
indelible form and be countersigned by an authorized person each day. A few
universities have also considered the creation of central storage repositories for
all primary data collected by their research investigators. Some government
research institutions and industrial research centers maintain such repositories to
safeguard the record of research developments for scientific, historical,
proprietary, and national security interests.
In the academic environment, however, centralized research records raise
complex problems of ownership, control, and access. Centralized data storage is
costly in terms of money and space, and it presents logistical problems of
cataloguing and retrieving data. There have been suggestions that some types of
scientific data should be incorporated into centralized computerized data banks, a
portion of which could be subject to periodic auditing or certification.14 But much
investigator-initiated research is not suitable for random data audits because of
the exploratory nature of basic or discovery research.15
Some scientific journals now require that full data for research papers be
deposited in a centralized data bank before final publication. Policies and
practices differ, but in some fields support is growing for compulsory deposit to
enhance researchers' access to supporting data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

Issues Related to Advances in Information Technology

Advances in electronic and other information technologies have raised new
questions about the customs and practices that influence the storage, ownership,
and exchange of electronic data and software. A number of special issues, not
addressed by the panel, are associated with computer modeling, simulation, and
other approaches that are becoming more prevalent in the research environment.
Computer technology can enhance research collaboration; it can also create new
impediments to data sharing resulting from increased costs, the need for
specialized equipment, or liabilities or uncertainties about responsibilities for
faulty data, software, or computer-generated models.
Advances in computer technology may assist in maintaining and preserving
accurate records of research data. Such records could help resolve questions
about the timing or accuracy of specific research findings, especially when a
principal investigator is not available or is uncooperative in responding to such
questions. In principle, properly managed information technologies, utilizing
advances in nonerasable optical disk systems, might reinforce openness in
scientific research and make primary data more transparent to collaborators and
research managers. For example, the so-called WORM (write once, read many)
systems provide a high-density digital storage medium that supplies an
ineradicable audit trail and historical record for all entered information (Haas,
1991).
Advances in information technologies could thus provide an important
benefit to research institutions that wish to emphasize greater access to and
storage of primary research data. But the development of centralized information
systems in the academic research environment raises difficult issues of
ownership, control, and principle that reflect the decentralized character of
university governance. Such systems are also a source of additional research
expense, often borne by individual investigators. Moreover, if centralized
systems are perceived by scientists as an inappropriate or ineffective form of
management or oversight of individual research groups, they simply may not
work in an academic environment.
Communication and Publication
Scientists communicate research results by a variety of formal and informal
means. In earlier times, new findings and interpretations were communicated by
letter, personal meeting, and publication. Today, computer networks and
facsimile machines have supplemented

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

letters and telephones in facilitating rapid exchange of results. Scientific meetings

routinely include poster sessions and press conferences as well as formal
presentations. Although research publications continue to document research
findings, the appearance of electronic publications and other information
technologies heralds change. In addition, incidents of plagiarism, the increasing
number of authors per article in selected fields, and the methods by which
publications are assessed in determining appointments and promotions have all
increased concerns about the traditions and practices that have guided
communication and publication.
Journal publication, traditionally an important means of sharing information
and perspectives among scientists, is also a principal means of establishing a
record of achievement in science. Evaluation of the accomplishments of
individual scientists often involves not only the numbers of articles that have
resulted from a selected research effort, but also the particular journals in which
the articles have appeared. Journal submission dates are often important in
establishing priority and intellectual property claims.
Authorship
Authorship of original research reports is an important indicator of
accomplishment, priority, and prestige within the scientific community.
Questions of authorship in science are intimately connected with issues of credit
and responsibility. Authorship practices are guided by disciplinary traditions,
customary practices within research groups, and professional and journal
standards and policies.16 There is general acceptance of the principle that each
named author has made a significant intellectual contribution to the paper, even
though there remains substantial disagreement over the types of contributions
that are judged to be significant.
A general rule is that an author must have participated sufficiently in the
work to take responsibility for its content and vouch for its validity. Some
journals have adopted more specific guidelines, suggesting that credit for
authorship be contingent on substantial participation in one or more of the
following categories: (1) conception and design of the experiment, (2) execution
of the experiment and collection and storage of the supporting data, (3) analysis
and interpretation of the primary data, and (4) preparation and revision of the
manuscript. The extent of participation in these four activities required for
authorship varies across journals, disciplines, and research groups. 17
"Honorary," "gift," or other forms of noncontributing authorship

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

are problems with several dimensions.18 Honorary authors reap an inflated list of
publications incommensurate with their scientific contributions (Zen, 1988).
Some scientists have requested or been given authorship as a form of recognition
of their status or influence rather than their intellectual contribution. Some
research leaders have a custom of including their own names in any paper issuing
from their laboratory, although this practice is increasingly discouraged. Some
students or junior staff encourage such "gift authorship" because they feel that the
inclusion of prestigious names on their papers increases the chance of publication
in well-known journals. In some cases, noncontributing authors have been listed
without their consent, or even without their being told. In response to these
practices, some journals now require all named authors to sign the letter that
accompanies submission of the original article, to ensure that no author is named
without consent.
"Specialized" authorship is another issue that has received increasing
attention. In these cases, a co-author may claim responsibility for a specialized
portion of the paper and may not even see or be able to defend the paper as a
whole.19 "Specialized" authorship may also result from demands that coauthorship be given as a condition of sharing a unique research reagent or
selected data that do not constitute a major contributiondemands that many
scientists believe are inappropriate. "Specialized" authorship may be appropriate
in cross-disciplinary collaborations, in which each participant has made an
important contribution that deserves recognition. However, the risks associated
with the inabilities of co-authors to vouch for the integrity of an entire paper are
great; scientists may unwittingly become associated with a discredited
publication.
Another problem of lesser importance, except to the scientists involved, is
the order of authors listed on a paper. The meaning of author order varies among
and within disciplines. For example, in physics the ordering of authors is
frequently alphabetical, whereas in the social sciences and other fields, the
ordering reflects a descending order of contribution to the described research.
Another practice, common in biology, is to list the senior author last.
Appropriate recognition for the contributions of junior investigators,
postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students is sometimes a source of discontent
and unease in the contemporary research environment. Junior researchers have
raised concerns about treatment of their contributions when research papers are
prepared and submitted, particularly if they are attempting to secure promotions
or independent research funding or if they have left the original project. In some
cases, well-meaning senior scientists may grant junior colleagues

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

undeserved authorship or placement as a means of enhancing the junior

colleague's reputation. In others, significant contributions may not receive
appropriate recognition.
Authorship practices are further complicated by large-scale projects,
especially those that involve specialized contributions. Mission teams for space
probes, oceanographic expeditions, and projects in high-energy physics, for
example, all involve large numbers of senior scientists who depend on the longterm functioning of complex equipment. Some questions about communication
and publication that arise from large science projects such as the Superconducting
Super Collider include: Who decides when an experiment is ready to be
published? How is the spokesperson for the experiment determined? Who
determines who can give talks on the experiment? How should credit for
technical or hardware contributions be acknowledged?
Apart from plagiarism, problems of authorship and credit allocation usually
do not involve misconduct in science. Although some forms of ''gift authorship,"
in which a designated author made no identifiable contribution to a paper, may be
viewed as instances of falsification, authorship disputes more commonly involve
unresolved differences of judgment and style. Many research groups have found
that the best method of resolving authorship questions is to agree on a designation
of authors at the outset of the project. The negotiation and decision process
provides initial recognition of each member's effort, and it may prevent
misunderstandings that can arise during the course of the project when
individuals may be in transition to new efforts or may become preoccupied with
other matters.
Plagiarism. Plagiarism is using the ideas or words of another person without
giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unacknowledged use of text and
ideas from published work, as well as the misuse of privileged information
obtained through confidential review of research proposals and manuscripts.
As described in Honor in Science, plagiarism can take many forms: at one
extreme is the exact replication of another's writing without appropriate
attribution (Sigma Xi, 1986). At the other is the more subtle "borrowing" of
ideas, terms, or paraphrases, as described by Martin et al., "so that the result is a
mosaic of other people's ideas and words, the writer's sole contribution being the
cement to hold the pieces together.20 The importance of recognition for one's
intellectual abilities in science demands high standards of accuracy and diligence
in ensuring appropriate recognition for the work of others.
The misuse of privileged information may be less clear-cut because it does
not involve published work. But the general principles

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

of the importance of giving credit to the accomplishments of others are the same.
The use of ideas or information obtained from peer review is not acceptable
because the reviewer is in a privileged position. Some organizations, such as the
American Chemical Society, have adopted policies to address these concerns
(ACS, 1986).
Additional Concerns. Other problems related to authorship include
overspecialization, overemphasis on short-term projects, and the organization of
research communication around the "least publishable unit." In a research system
that rewards quantity at the expense of quality and favors speed over attention to
detail (the effects of "publish or perish"), scientists who wait until their research
data are complete before releasing them for publication may be at a
disadvantage. Some institutions, such as Harvard Medical School, have
responded to these problems by limiting the number of publications reviewed for
promotion. Others have placed greater emphasis on major contributions as the
basis for evaluating research productivity.
Editors
As gatekeepers of scientific journals, editors are expected to use good
judgment and fairness in selecting papers for publication. Although editors
cannot be held responsible for the errors or inaccuracies of papers that may
appear in their journals, editors have obligations to consider criticism and
evidence that might contradict the claims of an author and to facilitate publication
of critical letters, errata, or retractions.21 Some institutions, including the
National Library of Medicine and professional societies that represent editors of
scientific journals, are exploring the development of standards relevant to these
obligations (Bailar et al., 1990).
Should questions be raised about the integrity of a published work, the
editor may request an author's institution to address the matter. Editors often
request written assurances that research reported conforms to all appropriate
guidelines involving human or animal subjects, materials of human origin, or
recombinant DNA.
In theory, editors set standards of authorship for their journals. In practice,
scientists in the specialty do. Editors may specify the terms of acknowledgment
of contributors who fall short of authorship status, and make decisions regarding
appropriate forms of disclosure of sources of bias or other potential conflicts of
interest related to published articles. For example, the New England Journal of
Medicine has established a category of prohibited contributions from authors
engaged in for-profit ventures: the journal will not allow

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

such persons to prepare review articles or editorial commentaries for publication.

Editors can clarify and insist on the confidentiality of review and take appropriate
actions against reviewers who violate it. Journals also may require or encourage
their authors to deposit reagents and sequence and crystallographic data into
appropriate databases or storage facilities.22
Peer Review
Peer review is the process by which editors and journals seek to be advised
by knowledgeable colleagues about the quality and suitability of a manuscript for
publication in a journal. Peer review is also used by funding agencies to seek
advice concerning the quality and promise of proposals for research support. The
proliferation of research journals and the rewards associated with publication and
with obtaining research grants have put substantial stress on the peer review
system. Reviewers for journals or research agencies receive privileged
information and must exert great care to avoid sharing such information with
colleagues or allowing it to enter their own work prematurely.
Although the system of peer review is generally effective, it has been
suggested that the quality of refereeing has declined, that self-interest has crept
into the review process, and that some journal editors and reviewers exert
inappropriate influence on the type of work they deem publishable.23
Correction of Errors
At some level, all scientific reports, even those that mark profound
advances, contain errors of fact or interpretation. In part, such errors reflect
uncertainties intrinsic to the research process itselfa hypothesis is formulated,
an experimental test is devised, and based on the interpretation of the results, the
hypothesis is refined, revised, or discarded. Each step in this cycle is subject to
error. For any given report, "correctness" is limited by the following:
1.

The precision and accuracy of the measurements. These in turn

depend on available technology, the use of proper statistical and
analytical methods, and the skills of the investigator.
2. Generality of the experimental system and approach. Studies must
often be carried out using "model systems." In biology, for example, a
given phenomenon is examined in only one or a few among millions
of organismal species.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

3. Experimental designa product of the background and expertise of

the investigator.
4. Interpretation and speculation regarding the significance of the
findingsjudgments that depend on expert knowledge, experience,
and the insightfulness and boldness of the investigator.
Viewed in this context, errors are an integral aspect of progress in attaining
scientific knowledge. They are consequences of the fact that scientists seek
fundamental truths about natural processes of vast complexity. In the best
experimental systems, it is common that relatively few variables have been
identified and that even fewer can be controlled experimentally. Even when
important variables are accounted for, the interpretation of the experimental
results may be incorrect and may lead to an erroneous conclusion. Such
conclusions are sometimes overturned by the original investigator or by others
when new insights from another study prompt a reexamination of older reported
data. In addition, however, erroneous information can also reach the scientific
literature as a consequence of misconduct in science.
What becomes of these errors or incorrect interpretations? Much has been
made of the concept that science is "self-correcting"that errors, whether honest
or products of misconduct, will be exposed in future experiments because
scientific truth is founded on the principle that results must be verifiable and
reproducible. This implies that errors will generally not long confound the
direction of thinking or experimentation in actively pursued areas of research.
Clearly, published experiments are not routinely replicated precisely by
independent investigators. However, each experiment is based on conclusions
from prior studies; repeated failure of the experiment eventually calls into
question those conclusions and leads to reevaluation of the measurements,
generality, design, and interpretation of the earlier work.
Thus publication of a scientific report provides an opportunity for the
community at large to critique and build on the substance of the report, and
serves as one stage at which errors and misinterpretations can be detected and
corrected. Each new finding is considered by the community in light of what is
already known about the system investigated, and disagreements with established
measurements and interpretations must be justified. For example, a particular
interpretation of an electrical measurement of a material may implicitly predict
the results of an optical experiment. If the reported optical results are in
disagreement with the electrical interpretation, then the latter is unlikely to be
correcteven though the measurements themselves

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

were carefully and correctly performed. It is also possible, however, that the
contradictory results are themselves incorrect, and this possibility will also be
evaluated by the scientists working in the field. It is by this process of
examination and reexamination that science advances.
The research endeavor can therefore be viewed as a two-tiered process: first,
hypotheses are formulated, tested, and modified; second, results and conclusions
are reevaluated in the course of additional study. In fact, the two tiers are
interrelated, and the goals and traditions of science mandate major
responsibilities in both areas for individual investigators. Importantly, the
principle of self-correction does not diminish the responsibilities of the
investigator in either area. The investigator has a fundamental responsibility to
ensure that the reported results can be replicated in his or her laboratory. The
scientific community in general adheres strongly to this principle, but practical
constraints exist as a result of the availability of specialized instrumentation,
research materials, and expert personnel. Other forces, such as competition,
commercial interest, funding trends and availability, or pressure to publish may
also erode the role of replication as a mechanism for fostering integrity in the
research process. The panel is unaware of any quantitative studies of this issue.
The process of reevaluating prior findings is closely related to the
formulation and testing of hypotheses.24 Indeed, within an individual laboratory,
the formulation/testing phase and the reevaluation phase are ideally ongoing
interactive processes. In that setting, the precise replication of a prior result
commonly serves as a crucial control in attempts to extend the original findings.
It is not unusual that experimental flaws or errors of interpretation are revealed as
the scope of an investigation deepens and broadens.
If new findings or significant questions emerge in the course of a
reevaluation that affect the claims of a published report, the investigator is
obliged to make public a correction of the erroneous result or to indicate the
nature of the questions. Occasionally, this takes the form of a formal published
retraction, especially in situations in which a central claim is found to be
fundamentally incorrect or irreproducible. More commonly, a somewhat
different version of the original experiment, or a revised interpretation of the
original result, is published as part of a subsequent report that extends in other
ways the initial work. Some concerns have been raised that such "revisions" can
sometimes be so subtle and obscure as to be unrecognizable. Such behavior is, at
best, a questionable research practice. Clearly, each scientist has a responsibility
to foster an environment that encourages

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

and demands rigorous evaluation and reevaluation of every key finding.

Much greater complexity is encountered when an investigator in one
research group is unable to confirm the published findings of another. In such
situations, precise replication of the original result is commonly not attempted
because of the lack of identical reagents, differences in experimental protocols,
diverse experimental goals, or differences in personnel. Under these
circumstances, attempts to obtain the published result may simply be dropped if
the central claim of the original study is not the major focus of the new study.
Alternatively, the inability to obtain the original finding may be documented in a
paper by the second investigator as part of a challenge to the original claim. In
any case, such questions about a published finding usually provoke the initial
investigator to attempt to reconfirm the original result, or to pursue additional
studies that support and extend the original findings.
In accordance with established principles of science, scientists have the
responsibility to replicate and reconfirm their results as a normal part of the
research process. The cycles of theoretical and methodological formulation,
testing, and reevaluation, both within and between laboratories, produce an
ongoing process of revision and refinement that corrects errors and
strengthens the fabric of research.
Research Training and Mentorship
The panel defined a mentor as that person directly responsible for the
professional development of a research trainee.25 Professional development
includes both technical training, such as instruction in the methods of scientific
research (e.g., research design, instrument use, and selection of research
questions and data), and socialization in basic research practices (e.g., authorship
practices and sharing of research data).
Positive Aspects of Mentorship
The relationship of the mentor and research trainee is usually characterized
by extraordinary mutual commitment and personal involvement. A mentor, as a
research advisor, is generally expected to supervise the work of the trainee and
ensure that the trainee's research is completed in a sound, honest, and timely
manner. The ideal mentor challenges the trainee, spurs the trainee to higher
scientific achievement, and helps socialize the trainee into the community

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

of scientists by demonstrating and discussing methods and practices that are not
well understood.
Research mentors thus have complex and diverse roles. Many individuals
excel in providing guidance and instruction as well as personal support, and some
mentors are resourceful in providing funds and securing professional
opportunities for their trainees. The mentoring relationship may also combine
elements of other relationships, such as parenting, coaching, and guildmastering.
One mentor has written that his "research group is like an extended family or
small tribe, dependent on one another, but led by the mentor, who acts as their
consultant, critic, judge, advisor, and scientific father" (Cram, 1989, p. 1).
Another mentor described as "orphaned graduate students" trainees who had lost
their mentors to death, job changes, or in other ways (Sindermann, 1987). Many
students come to respect and admire their mentors, who act as role models for
their younger colleagues.
Difficulties Associated with Mentorship
However, the mentoring relationship does not always function properly or
even satisfactorily. Almost no literature exists that evaluates which problems are
idiosyncratic and which are systemic. However, it is clear that traditional
practices in the area of mentorship and training are under stress. In some research
fields, for example, concerns are being raised about how the increasing size and
diverse composition of research groups affect the quality of the relationship
between trainee and mentor. As the size of research laboratories expands, the
quality of the training environment is at risk (CGS, 1990a).
Large laboratories may provide valuable instrumentation and access to
unique research skills and resources as well as an opportunity to work in
pioneering fields of science. But as only one contribution to the efforts of a large
research team, a graduate student's work may become highly specialized, leading
to a narrowing of experience and greater dependency on senior personnel; in a
period when the availability of funding may limit research opportunities,
laboratory heads may find it necessary to balance research decisions for the good
of the team against the individual educational interests of each trainee. Moreover,
the demands of obtaining sufficient resources to maintain a laboratory in the
contemporary research environment often separate faculty from their trainees.
When laboratory heads fail to participate in the everyday workings of the
laboratoryeven for the most beneficent of reasons, such as finding funds to
support young investigatorstheir inattention may harm their trainees'
education.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

Although the size of a research group can influence the quality of

mentorship, the more important issues are the level of supervision received by
trainees, the degree of independence that is appropriate for the trainees'
experience and interests, and the allocation of credit for achievements that are
accomplished by groups composed of individuals with different status. Certain
studies involving large groups of 40 to 100 or more are commonly carried out by
collaborative or hierarchical arrangements under a single investigator. These
factors may affect the ability of research mentors to transmit the methods and
ethical principles according to which research should be conducted.
Problems also arise when faculty members are not directly rewarded for
their graduate teaching or training skills. Although faculty may receive indirect
rewards from the contributions of well-trained graduate students to their own
research as well as the satisfaction of seeing their students excelling elsewhere,
these rewards may not be sufficiently significant in tenure or promotion
decisions. When institutional policies fail to recognize and reward the value of
good teaching and mentorship, the pressures to maintain stable funding for
research teams in a competitive environment can overwhelm the time allocated to
teaching and mentorship by a single investigator.
The increasing duration of the training period in many research fields is
another source of concern, particularly when it prolongs the dependent status of
the junior investigator. The formal period of graduate and postdoctoral training
varies considerably among fields of study. In 1988, the median time to the
doctorate from the baccalaureate degree was 6.5 years (NRC, 1989). The
disciplinary median varied: 5.5 years in chemistry; 5.9 years in engineering; 7.1
years in health sciences and in earth, atmospheric, and marine sciences; and 9.0
years in anthropology and sociology.26
Students, research associates, and faculty are currently raising various
questions about the rights and obligations of trainees. Sexist behavior by some
research directors and other senior scientists is a particular source of concern.
Another significant concern is that research trainees may be subject to
exploitation because of their subordinate status in the research laboratory,
particularly when their income, access to research resources, and future
recommendations are dependent on the goodwill of the mentor. Foreign students
and postdoctoral fellows may be especially vulnerable, since their immigration
status often depends on continuation of a research relationship with the selected
mentor.
Inequalities between mentor and trainee can exacerbate ordinary conflicts
such as the distribution of credit or blame for research error (NAS, 1989). When
conflicts arise, the expectations and assumptions

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

that govern authorship practices, ownership of intellectual property, and the

giving of references and recommendations are exposed for professionaland
even legalscrutiny (Nelkin, 1984; Weil and Snapper, 1989).
Making Mentorship Better
Ideally, mentors and trainees should select each other with an eye toward
scientific merit, intellectual and personal compatibility, and other relevant
factors. But this situation operates only under conditions of freely available
information and unconstrained choiceconditions that usually do not exist in
academic research groups. The trainee may choose to work with a faculty
member based solely on criteria of patronage, perceived influence, or ability to
provide financial support.
Good mentors may be well known and highly regarded within their research
communities and institutions. Unfortunately, individuals who exploit the
mentorship relationship may be less visible. Poor mentorship practices may be
self-correcting over time, if students can detect and avoid research groups
characterized by disturbing practices. However, individual trainees who
experience abusive relationships with a mentor may discover only too late that
the practices that constitute the abuse were well known but were not disclosed to
new initiates.
It is common practice for a graduate student to be supervised not only by an
individual mentor but also by a committee that represents the graduate
department or research field of the student. However, departmental oversight is
rare for the postdoctoral research fellow. In order to foster good mentorship
practices for all research trainees, many groups and institutions have taken steps
to clarify the nature of individual and institutional responsibilities in the mentortrainee relationship.27
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The self-regulatory system that characterizes the research process has
evolved from a diverse set of principles, traditions, standards, and customs
transmitted from senior scientists, research directors, and department chairs to
younger scientists by example, discussion, and informal education. The principles
of honesty, collegiality, respect for others, and commitment to dissemination,
critical evaluation, and rigorous training are characteristic of all the sciences.
Methods and techniques of experimentation, styles of communicating findings,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

the relationship between theory and experimentation, and laboratory groupings

for research and for training vary with the particular scientific disciplines. Within
those disciplines, practices combine the general with the specific. Ideally,
research practices reflect the values of the wider research community and also
embody the practical skills needed to conduct scientific research.
Practicing scientists are guided by the principles of science and the standard
practices of their particular scientific discipline as well as their personal moral
principles. But conflicts are inherent among these principles. For example, loyalty
to one's group of colleagues can be in conflict with the need to correct or report
an abuse of scientific practice on the part of a member of that group.
Because scientists and the achievements of science have earned the respect
of society at large, the behavior of scientists must accord not only with the
expectations of scientific colleagues, but also with those of a larger community.
As science becomes more closely linked to economic and political objectives, the
processes by which scientists formulate and adhere to responsible research
practices will be subject to increasing public scrutiny. This is one reason for
scientists and research institutions to clarify and strengthen the methods by which
they foster responsible research practices.
Accordingly, the panel emphasizes the following conclusions:
The panel believes that the existing self-regulatory system in science is
sound. But modifications are necessary to foster integrity in a changing
research environment, to handle cases of misconduct in science, and to
discourage questionable research practices.
Individual scientists have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that
their results are reproducible, that their research is reported thoroughly
enough so that results are reproducible, and that significant errors are
corrected when they are recognized. Editors of scientific journals share
these last two responsibilities.
Research mentors, laboratory directors, department heads, and senior
faculty are responsible for defining, explaining, exemplifying, and
requiring adherence to the value systems of their institutions. The
neglect of sound training in a mentor's laboratory will over time
compromise the integrity of the research process.
Administrative officials within the research institution also bear
responsibility for ensuring that good scientific practices are observed in
units of appropriate jurisdiction and that balanced reward systems
appropriately recognize research quality, integrity, teaching, and
mentorship. Adherence to scientific principles and disciplinary standards
is at the root of a vital and productive research environment.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

At present, scientific principles are passed on to trainees primarily by

example and discussion, including training in customary practices. Most
research institutions do not have explicit programs of instruction and
discussion to foster responsible research practices, but the
communication of values and traditions is critical to fostering
responsible research practices and detering misconduct in science.
Efforts to foster responsible research practices in areas such as data
handling, communication and publication, and research training and
mentorship deserve encouragement by the entire research community.
Problems have also developed in these areas that require explicit
attention and correction by scientists and their institutions. If not
properly resolved, these problems may weaken the integrity of the
research process.
NOTES
1. See, for example, Kuyper (1991).
2. See, for example, the proposal by Pigman and Carmichael (1950).
3. See, for example, Holton (1988) and Ravetz (1971).
4. Several excellent books on experimental design and statistical methods are available. See, for
example, Wilson (1952) and Beveridge (1957).
5. For a somewhat dated review of codes of ethics adopted by the scientific and engineering societies,
see Chalk et al. (1981).
6. The discussion in this section is derived from Mark Frankel's background paper, ''Professional
Societies and Responsible Research Conduct," included in Volume II of this report.
7. For a broader discussion on this point, see Zuckerman (1977).
8. For a full discussion of the roles of scientific societies in fostering responsible research practices,
see the background paper prepared by Mark Frankel, "Professional Societies and Responsible
Research Conduct," in Volume II of this report.
9. Selected examples of academic research conduct policies and guidelines are included in Volume II
of this report.
10. See, for example, Holton's response to the criticisms of Millikan in Chapter 12 of Thematic
Origins of Scientific Thought (Holton, 1988). See also Holton (1978).
11. See, for example, responses to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences action
against Friedman: Hamilton (1990) and Abelson et al. (1990). See also the discussion in Bailar et al.
(1990).
12. Much of the discussion in this section is derived from a background paper, "Reflections on the
Current State of Data and Reagent Exchange Among Biomedical Researchers," prepared by Robert
Weinberg and included in Volume II of this report.
13. See, for example, Culliton (1990) and Bradshaw et al. (1990). For the impact of the inability to
provide corroborating data or witnesses, also see Ross et al. (1989).
14. See, for example, Rennie (1989) and Cassidy and Shamoo (1989).
15. See, for example, the discussion on random data audits in Institute of Medicine (1989a), pp.
26-27.
16. For a full discussion of the practices and policies that govern authorship in the biological
sciences, see Bailar et al. (1990).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

17. Note that these general guidelines exclude the provision of reagents or facilities or the supervision
of research as a criteria of authorship.
18. A full discussion of problematic practices in authorship is included in Bailar et al. (1990). A
controversial review of the responsibilities of co-authors is presented by Stewart and Feder (1987).
19. In the past, scientific papers often included a special note by a named researcher, not a co-author
of the paper, who described, for example, a particular substance or procedure in a footnote or
appendix. This practice seems to have been abandoned for reasons that are not well understood.
20. Martin et al. (1969), as cited in Sigma Xi (1986), p. 41.
21. Huth (1988) suggests a "notice of fraud or notice of suspected fraud" issued by the journal editor
to call attention to the controversy (p. 38). Angell (1983) advocates closer coordination between
institutions and editors when institutions have ascertained misconduct.
22. Such facilities include Cambridge Crystallographic Data Base, GenBank at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, the American Type Culture Collection, and the Protein Data Bank at Brookhaven
National Laboratory. Deposition is important for data that cannot be directly printed because of large
volume.
23. For more complete discussions of peer review in the wider context, see, for example, Cole et al.
(1977) and Chubin and Hackett (1990).
24. The strength of theories as sources of the formulation of scientific laws and predictive power
varies among different fields of science. For example, theories derived from observations in the field
of evolutionary biology lack a great deal of predictive power. The role of chance in mutation and
natural selection is great, and the future directions that evolution may take are essentially impossible
to predict. Theory has enormous power for clarifying understanding of how evolution has occurred
and for making sense of detailed data, but its predictive power in this field is very limited. See, for
example, Mayr (1982, 1988).
25. Much of the discussion on mentorship is derived from a background paper prepared for the panel
by David Guston. A copy of the full paper, "Mentorship and the Research Training Experience," is
included in Volume II of this report.
26. Although the time to the doctorate is increasing, there is some evidence that the magnitude of the
increase may be affected by the organization of the cohort chosen for study. In the humanities, the
increased time to the doctorate is not as large if one chooses as an organizational base the year in
which the baccalaureate was received by Ph.D. recipients, rather than the year in which the Ph.D. was
completed; see Bowen et al. (1991).
27. Some universities have written guidelines for the supervision or mentorship of trainees as part of
their institutional research policy guidelines (see, for example, the guidelines adopted by Harvard
University and the University of Michigan that are included in Volume II of this report). Other groups
or institutions have written "guidelines" (IOM, 1989a; NIH, 1990), "checklists" (CGS, 1990a), and
statements of "areas of concern" and suggested "devices" (CGS, 1990c).

The guidelines often affirm the need for regular, personal interaction
between the mentor and the trainee. They indicate that mentors may need to limit
the size of their laboratories so that they are able to interact directly and
frequently with all of their trainees. Although there are many ways to ensure
responsible mentorship, methods that provide continuous feedback, whether
through formal or informal mechanisms, are apt to be the most successful (CGS,
1990a). Departmental mentorship awards (comparable to teaching or research
prizes) can recognize, encourage, and enhance the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES

mentoring relationship. For other discussions on mentorship, see the paper by

David Guston in Volume II of this report.
One group convened by the Institute of Medicine has suggested "that the
university has a responsibility to ensure that the size of a research unit does not
outstrip the mentor's ability to maintain adequate supervision" (IOM, 1989a, p.
85). Others have noted that although it may be desirable to limit the number of
trainees assigned to a senior investigator, there is insufficient information at this
time to suggest that numbers alone significantly affect the quality of research
supervision (IOM, 1989a, p. 33).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

3
Contemporary Research Environment

THE U.S. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ENTERPRISE

Brief Historical Perspective
The U.S. academic research enterprise of the 1990s differs in kind and scale
from that of earlier decades. Once an informal, intimate, and paternalistic
endeavor, research today is conducted as part of a more formal, complex, highly
diversified enterprise that engages the talents of a broad spectrum of individuals
and institutions. The organizational structures within which research is supported
and performed, the climate within which research is conducted, and the criteria
that define scientific achievement today are quite different from those that were in
place previously.
The uniquely American multipurpose university was firmly established in
the United States by 1890 and thereafter was gradually augmented by
professional schools and institutes of technology (Geiger, 1990). Because
institutional support for scientific work was scarce in the early part of the
nineteenth century, research was usually an avocation rather than a profession.
Later in the century, as the university system evolved and the idea of the pursuit
of science for its own sake gained support, research was pursued as a full-time
vocation (Daniels, 1967).
Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, universities

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

retained the tradition of a community of independent scholars characterized by

autonomy, individuality, and a diversity of research interests. Some faculty
research was commercially or industrially oriented, particularly in the engineering
schools and in chemistry departments. Some faculty followed government
research interests in agriculture. Still others pursued independent research
interests with small amounts of philanthropic support.
In response to the vital contributions of science and technology to U.S.
victories in World War II, Bush (1945) and Steelman (1947) called for increased
government support of research. The Bush report inspired a postwar relationship
between government and the scientific community that sought to extend the
successes of both government-organized projects such as the Manhattan Project
and university-based research such as that performed at the Radiation Laboratory
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Both models of scientific work
were eventually implemented, and the Bush report provided the blueprint for
continued federal support of academic science through a decentralized process
driven by investigator-initiated research proposals, eventually institutionalized
with the establishment of the National Science Foundation in 1950.
The post-World War II years were thus the formative period for a more
intimate relationship between the U.S. government and the scientific research
community. The development of the contemporary system of federal support for
university-based basic research and the education of new researchers provided the
platform for the current preeminence of U.S. research (GUIRR, 1989). This
system grew rapidly through the late 1960s (Brooks, 1989).
In the 1970s economic stagnation and concern about the cost of research and
the social impact of science-based technologies led to a reexamination of the
basic rationale governing federal investments in scientific research (GUIRR,
1989; Brooks, 1989). This reexamination led in turn to increased oversight and
involvement of public officials with both science and technology. New regulatory
requirements and new standards of accountability were imposed (OTA, 1986a).
In the 1980s renewed growth in federal funding for scientific research
stimulated changes in the academic research environment. Support increased for
research and development centers, large projects, and single-disease or singletechnology programs, often called directed or mission-oriented research. But the
accompanying increases in the size of academic administrative staffs and the
amount of research overhead costs created concerns among sponsors and faculty.1
In the face of increasing federal budget deficits in the late 1980s and decreasing
economic and educational performance by the nation,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

motivations for funding research have focused increasingly on technological

innovation, economic competitiveness, and education. This shifting rationale for
federal support has been accompanied by demands for tighter management and
oversight of research.
Current Concerns
How the contemporary research environment affects the integrity of the
research process and the incidence of misconduct in science is poorly
understood. But individual scientists and public officials have expressed concern
about several factors that may foster dishonest behavior, which can range from
subtle exaggeration of the value of research results to actual fabrication or
falsification of research findings. One such factor is the pressure associated with
producing research results to attract and maintain stable funding in a research
system that cannot support all meritorious research proposals. Such pressure
could erode the high standards of honesty and open collaboration that have
traditionally characterized the scientific community. This and other concerns,
coupled with heightened public awareness of waste, fraud, and abuse in other
publicly supported activities, suggest that government oversight of the conduct of
scientific research is likely to continue, if not increase. Such scrutiny has
profound implications for the system of internal checks and balances in the
research enterprise, which were designed for a research environment far removed
from the forces of the political process.
THE CHANGING RESEARCH SCENE
Many factors have contributed to the evolving research scene, including the
increasing complexity of contemporary research problems and instrumentation,
the increasing costs of scientific research, changes in the rationale for supporting
and monitoring government-funded research, and increased regulation of federal
research. Other principal factors affecting the research environment include the
scale, scope, and organization of research centers and groups; the changing
character of collaborative efforts; the growing number of contenders for research
funds; the reward system; and increasing emphasis on commercialization of
research results. Combined, these factors exacerbate conflicts that have always
been apparent to some extent in scientific research.
One example of the recent and profound changes characterizing the
contemporary research environment is the changing nature of its basic
organizational unit. Twenty years ago, a hypothetical laboratory

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

group consisted of less than a half-dozen members. The group was small, closely
knit, and composed of individuals who generally shared a common cultural
heritage. The group accepted, often without conflict, a hierarchical structure of
relationships and shared a common set of craft skills and moral standards, and its
members followed well-understood lines of communication.
Today, although many research groups still consist of less than a dozen
members, larger and more diverse research groups are becoming more common.
The group members in large research teams differ in status; they include research
investigators, undergraduate students, postdoctoral researchers, visiting faculty,
and technicians. These individuals report, sometimes in an ill-defined manner, to a
research director who frequently has many more professional and institutional
obligations than his or her counterpart of 20 years ago.
Interpersonal conflicts and professional rivalries have always been part of
the scientific culture. Yet good communication, good mentoring, and research
supervision may be more difficult to achieve and to sustain in a large, complex,
and democratic group environment (Phillip, 1991). Most research supervisors
recognize the importance of good manners, civility, professional support, and
personal interaction in their laboratories. However, the diverse social
environment and the conflicting expectations of researchers offer increased
opportunities for misunderstandings and unresolved disputes. If such disputes are
not responsibly addressed, they sometimes can lead to allegations of misconduct
in science, perhaps accompanied by an accusation that there has been a threat of
reprisal. In the current environment, what has traditionally been regarded as an
internal concern of a research laboratory or university can be escalated,
sometimes rapidly, to a problem involving complex relationships and formal
procedures between government agencies and research institutions. Questionable
behavior in the research environment today is being publicized and publicly
criticized.
Misconduct in science can occur, and allegations of misconduct must be
treated seriously. But some complaints may simply reflect a poor research
environment rather than actual misconduct in science. The best way to avoid or
minimize research disputes is to establish a proper research environment.
Research supervisors must devote attention to maintaining an atmosphere of open
communication and cooperation in their research groups, with opportunity for
appropriate participation by and recognition of all parties. Considering human
relationships and interactions is an important aspect of good research practice.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

Increased Size and Scope of the Research Enterprise

The U.S. research enterprise is larger today than it has ever been, whether
measured in terms of numbers of institutions, research groups, investigators,
postdoctoral fellows, technicians, graduate students, proposals, funding, research
findings, articles, or knowledge produced. Scientific discoveries, patents, and
publications in the post-World War II era all demonstrate the remarkable growth
that has occurred in every field and discipline.
Federal funding of academic research and development has grown
dramatically over the past 30 years, from less than $2 billion in 1958 to more than
$8 billion in 1989, in constant 1988 dollars (GUIRR, 1989). The total number of
scientists and engineers employed by universities increased from 120,000 in 1958
to 330,000 in 1988, while the number of Ph.D. degrees awarded annually
increased from 6,000 to around 19,000 in the same period (GUIRR, 1989). Also
during this time period, the annual growth rate in postdoctoral positions was 5
percent for science and 8 percent for engineering (NSB, 1989). While the number
of investigators has been increasing, the number of investigator-initiated research
proposals has been increasing at an even faster rate. The increase in proposals per
investigator is probably related to the strategy of submitting multiple proposals to
increase the likelihood of funding.2
The number of science and engineering articles published by academic
scientists and engineers has doubled since 1965, with continued rapid growth
through 1980 (NSF, 1990c). As with the number of proposals, the increase in
articles has resulted from an increase both in the number of researchers and the
number of articles produced per researcher per year. Similarly, the number of
patents issued to universities, a different measure of research activity, has grown
rapidly during the past decade.
Not only have the numbers of journals and articles increased, but the
number of authors per article has also increased in fields such as high-energy
physics, molecular biology, and clinical medicine. Huth, for example, reported
that the mean number of authors per paper for the journals Annals of Internal
Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine rose from 1 in 1925 to 6 in
1985 (Huth, 1988). 3 He added that "in some papers the number of authors is
clearly excessive for the intellectual activities represented" and that "the climbing
number of authors per paper is tending to cheapen the value of authorship" (p.
40).
With more manuscripts submitted for publication and more proposals

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

submitted for funding, the overall work load associated with critical evaluation
has increased. There are concerns that peer review no longer operates as well as
in earlier times, although the effects of increased volume on the operation of the
system are not known (Chubin and Hackett, 1990).
Complexity of Collaboration
The increased emphasis on collaborative research is another indicator of
change in the research environment. Before World War II, for example, scientific
papers signed by more than four authors were practically nonexistent. Also
extremely rare were papers that reported the results of collaborative efforts
involving more than one laboratory or research team. But modern advances in the
speed of travel and communication and in research instrumentation have changed
the nature of scientific collaboration. Today, many important research papers
involve collaboration among three or more laboratories, with a dozen or more
authors in all. It is not unusual for authors or contributing laboratories to reside in
more than one country. Although the senior investigators in these efforts may
know each other personally, it is unlikely that the junior collaborators have ever
met.
Different research groups may have different kinds of specialized skills, and
complementary expert skills are likely to be the basis of the scientific
collaboration. This type of interaction is very different, however, from earlier
scientific exchanges in which all members of a research team shared the same
laboratory environment and saw each other constantly during their work
together.
Many of the achievements of modern scienceof molecular biology, for
examplehave resulted from complex collaborative exchanges. Scientific
advances in this field and others show that specialized collaborations can work
effectively and are often indispensable to advancing knowledge. Nevertheless, the
complexity of such operations, and the fact that many of the participants have
limited personal interactions as well as limited abilities to evaluate the
qualifications of others with different kinds of expertise, can give rise on occasion
to conflicts and serious misunderstandings and can limit the effective operation
of internal checks and balances.
Organization, Goals, and Management of Research Groups
Universities are characterized by decentralized organizational structures.
The faculty traditionally govern academic programs. The faculty,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

in turn, are governed by a broad set of administrative and regulatory policies that
affect the scientific research environment, increasingly so today. These policies
reflect broad social concerns (e.g., about sexual harassment and equal
opportunity) as well as matters explicitly related to the conduct of research (e.g.,
protection of human and animal subjects, regulation of toxic materials, and
handling of hazardous equipment). In addition, many academic research
institutions have now adopted policies regarding conflict of interest and the
intellectual property developed by their employees.
Research in disciplinary specialties has traditionally been organized in a
specific academic department. But research in many fields is now characterized
by interdisciplinary approaches and is frequently carried out by individual
academic investigators who, though they may have a departmental affiliation, are
attached to independent research centers. Centers may be organized around
common research interests (e.g., poverty, energy, the environment) or research
styles and resource needs (e.g., surveys, computer modeling, synchrotron light
sources). Center directors often assume responsibility for generating support,
including ongoing support for facilities and core staff.
Research goals are increasingly linked, by sponsors and investigators, to
specific social needs. Indeed, economic development has received explicit
emphasis in recent years in some federal and most state-supported research.
Research projects aimed at environmental, health, and other particular social
problems have, since the 1960s, increasingly been carried out by interdisciplinary
academic groups and research centers. Industry has often participated in and
sponsored such activities and has provided a diversified source of funding.
Research investigators in such organizations include tenured and junior faculty
members, visiting scientists, nonfaculty research scientists, postdoctoral research
fellows, graduate students, and technicians.
As a result of these trends, scientific research organizations today need an
unaccustomed level of structure and efficient management to perform effectively.
Many large research groups do not have organizational procedures to support the
necessary level of management and oversight. Such circumstances can inhibit the
effective resolution of disputes and even incidents of misconduct.
Issues related to authorship, allocation of credit, and data management
practices often arise in large research groups. Teams of 100 Ph.D.s are common
where research is dependent on major instruments. As instrumentation becomes
more specialized, the team size, too, will grow, to 600 or more Ph.D.s in some
instances. Some research team efforts are tightly coordinated, whereas other "big
science"

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

projects have a highly decentralized research culture. For example, the War on
Cancer and the Human Genome Project have been described as combinations of
''little science" initiatives. However, they typically follow a structured plan to
achieve selected research objectives.
Research groups are governed by various management practices. Some
groups operate in a collaborative style, choosing research problems through
consultation among senior and junior investigators about the appropriate course to
follow in pursuing interesting observations. Other groups adopt a more
hierarchical style, whereby the principal investigator establishes a course of
action for the research team as a whole and encourages efforts that contribute to
the central mission of the director. In a few laboratories, research directors may
discourage collegial discussion of new results or interpretation of findings or may
foster competitive practices by assigning junior researchers to identical research
problems.
Regulation and Accountability
Scientific research is increasingly subject to government regulations and
guidelines that impose financial and administrative requirements and affect
specific elements of the research process as well. Among the subjects of current
research regulations are the assurance of a drug-free workplace, laboratory
safety, proper use of human subjects and care of animal subjects, and care in the
use of recombinant DNA and in the use of toxic and radioactive materials (OTA,
1986a). Regulatory requirements of the Public Health Service, the National
Science Foundation, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs have also
prompted, and in some cases required, research institutions to adopt policies and
formal procedures to handle allegations of misconduct in science.
To assure the full compliance of investigators and institutions with these
regulatory requirements, universities have expanded administrative and oversight
functions. The associated costs in time and money have escalated tensions
between administrators and faculties that would prefer to see the funds going into
research. This is one of several issues that has caused schisms in the academic
community.
Reward System
The criteria used to appoint, evaluate, and promote individual faculty
members deeply influence the research enterprise. The rewards of a successful
academic career traditionally include the personal

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

gratification derived from scholarship and discovery, recognition by peers, and

academic promotion and tenure, as well as enhanced responsibility and outside
financial opportunities. The successful researcher can attract continuing research
support and can enjoy a reputation that opens new opportunities for prestigious
appointments.
The academic reward system today is influenced largely by research
performance and productivity, sometimes measured by the number of
publications or total amount of research support acquired by individual faculty.
Intellectual contributions, teaching, and service to the university and the public
are considered in varying degrees depending on the institution and discipline.
However, there appears to be an imbalance, with emphasis on publication output
and research support as the basis for promotion and tenure (Boyer, 1990).4
Quantitative measures of productivity have occasionally become substitutes
for the critical evaluation of scientific work. This reliance on numbers arises in
part because departmental peers are less able to evaluate the contribution of an
individual researcher to large scientific projects or to interdisciplinary teams with
an applied research approach. Attribution of credit among individuals on
multiauthored publications is also difficult. Even when the form of an individual's
contribution is clear, the significance of the contribution is often arguable.
The "publish-or-perish" dictum can lead to overspecialization, overemphasis
on short-term projects, and the organization of research communication around
the "least publishable unit." Theoretical approaches, including computer
simulations, that yield especially rapid results can be favored over tedious
programs of fundamental experiments. An excessive emphasis on quantitative
measures of scientific productivity can penalize scientists who make responsible
attempts to protect the quality of science (i.e., by delaying publication until they
have completed a series of experiments instead of publishing each experiment).
As Jackson and Prados (1983) have observed (p. 464):
Good scientists may publish a lot or a little. But there is a very definite evil in a
university that allows or encourages tenure committees to set standards of, say
twenty published papers or abstracts in four years as a minimum requirement for
consideration, or to discard as irrelevant any paper in a branch of science other
than the tenure candidate's principal field of specialization.

Some institutions have responded to the emphasis on large numbers by

limiting the number of publications reviewed for promotion

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

and by rewarding nonresearch scholarship such as teaching and communicating

science to a general audience (Kennedy, 1991; Harvard University Faculty of
Medicine, 1988).
University-Industry Cooperation
The importance of contributing to economic development as a national
research goal during the last decade has led to an emphasis on prompt transfer of
fundamental research findings into commercial use. U.S. universities have often
produced discoveries with practical significance, an achievement that has
attracted the interest of both U.S. and foreign firms. In many areas of
technological significancemicroelectronics, biotechnology, materials science,
instrumentation, and catalysis, for examplethe interval between laboratory
discovery and practical application has decreased. Rapid commercialization has
provided increased incentives for joint industry-university research programs.
Public desires to strengthen the competitive performance of U.S. industry have
fostered academic research programs aimed at improving U.S. manufacturing.
A number of federal and state programs now encourage or require
cooperation between universities, industry, and national laboratories. Universityindustry partnerships are implemented by a variety of mechanisms, including
long-term agreements with one or more university research groups to pursue a
subject of mutual interest, participation in research consortia, research contracts
with specific program objectives, and informal collaborations. Consortia efforts,
in which several companies combine with research groups at one or more
universities to pursue a common research program, are another mechanism.
Federal technology transfer programs, such as those in the Department of
Defense and several Department of Energy programs at national laboratories, are
other examples.
University-industry partnerships stimulate new ideas and innovation by both
communities and motivate research teams to achieve important innovations of
commercial value. But commercial relationships may introduce conflicts for
academic investigators and the university. Some conflicts result from tension
between the traditions of openness in the university, where prompt publication
and free access to research results is required, and desires to restrict access to
research results of proprietary value. Other conflicts can arise because personal
profit and commercial interests can become explicit goals of individuals and
institutions.
Despite efforts to minimize conflicts, there is growing concern in the
scientific research community about the consequences of academic-commercial

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

collaboration, especially in the area of clinical research. Many universities are

adopting new and more stringent rules to govern conflict of interest and
ownership of intellectual property, including categories of activities with differing
requirements for disclosure as well as prohibited activities and relationships. An
instructive case is the debate accompanying the adoption in 1990 of conflict-ofinterest rules at the Harvard University Medical School (Harvard University
Faculty of Medicine, 1990).
Conflicts of interest have the potential to affect peer review, publication and
data management practices, training and mentorship, and other practices and
behavior. For this reason, some scientific journals require authors to disclose
sources of support and potential sources of bias when submitting their research
papers.5 Such conflicts also can influence the investigation of allegations of
misconduct in science, especially if biases are not detected in the formation of
investigatory panels that review and adjudicate misconduct complaints.
Although the panel does not believe that industry-university research
arrangements present unique risks for misconduct in science, the self-serving
interests associated with such arrangements pose issues that require institutional
attention and oversight to ensure the integrity of the research process.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The contemporary research enterprise is far removed from that of the preWorld War II era. In particular, the academic research community, governed by
traditions derived from an earlier model of a community of independent scholars
who participated equally in academic governance, is challenged by the
complexity of today's issues and of the environment in which research is
conducted. Still, basic research continues to flourish, and faculty, postdoctoral
fellows, and graduate students continue to contribute extraordinary research
capability to science.
Concerns are apparent, however, and it is clear that key environmental
factors require attention to protect the high standards of research integrity
traditionally associated with scientists and their institutions. In reviewing changes
within the scientific research enterprise, the panel reached the following
conclusions:
Scientific research is part of a larger and more complicated enterprise
today, creating a greater need for individual and institutional attention to
matters that affect the integrity of the research process. Scientists
themselves and research institutions will be expected

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

to play a more active role in ensuring that the activities performed by

researchers are within the governance mechanisms of their institutions.
The need for more explicit forms of institutional accountability and
oversight is one price of the growth and success of the academic research
enterprise.
The growth and diversity of modern research call for institutions to
accept explicit responsibility for fostering the integrity of the research
process and for handling allegations of misconduct. In encouraging this
acceptance, the panel is not suggesting that institutions assume
responsibility for the correctness and accuracy of research results
reported by their scientists or students. However, in recognizing that
their faculty and research staff are responsible for maintaining the
integrity of the research process, institutions should retain and accept
certain explicit obligations. Principal among these is providing a
research environment that fosters honesty, integrity, and a sense of
community. Institutions should strive to attain a research enterprise that
emphasizes and rewards excellence in science, quality rather than
quantity, openness rather than secrecy, and collegial obligations rather
than opportunistic behavior in appointment, promotion, tenure, and
other career decisions. Research institutions should also recognize the
risks that are inherent in self-regulation and strive to involve outside
parties, when appropriate, in investigating or evaluating the conduct of
their own members. Steps toward achieving these goals are discussed in
Chapter 6.
The increased size, specialization, and diversity of research groups, and
other changes in the social relationships of their members, have
stimulated personal conflicts and misunderstandings, including disputes
within and between research groups about fairness and allocation of
credit. These disputes may be prevented by positive efforts to foster
responsible research practices and by taking preemptive actions, such as
prior discussion and agreement on allocation of credit, to promote a
harmonious work environment that encourages collegiality,
collaboration, and productivity. Frank discussions, both formal and
informal, possibly aided by outside mediators, are additional tools to use
in addressing these disputes.
The issues associated with conflict of interest in the academic research
environment are sufficiently problematic that they deserve thorough
study and analysis by major academic and scientific organizations,
including the National Academy of Sciences. Disclosure, either public
or institutional, is essential to controlling conflict of interest, and some
universities and scientific journals prohibit certain forms of commercial
contractual arrangements by their members or

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

authors. But the responsibility for such disclosure rests with scientists
themselves.
The research environment is stressful and yet conductive to the
remarkable productivity of researchers. The rewards for successful
research are greater now than in the past, but today's rapid pace of
development may undermine critical internal checks and balances and
may increase opportunities for misrepresentation or distortion of
research results. Thus the scientific community must organize to
reinforce its standards and to ensure the responsible conduct of research.
NOTES
1. See, for example, Association of American Universities (1988).
2. The Office of Technology Assessment suggests that a "kind of lottery mentality appears to have
taken hold in the 1980s: the more grant proposals submitted, the greater the probability that one would
be funded" (OTA, 1990, p. 10).
3. The mean is represented by rounding off to one significant figure.
4. See also, for example, Angell (1986).
5. See, for example, the editorial policies of the New England Journal of Medicine (1992).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

4
Misconduct in ScienceIncidence and
Significance
Estimates reported in government summaries, research studies, and
anecdotal accounts of cases of confirmed misconduct in science in the United
States range between 40 and 100 cases during the period from 1980 to 1990.1 The
range reflects differences in the definitions of misconduct in science,
uncertainties about the basis for "confirmed" cases, the time lag between the
occurrence and disclosure of some cases, and potential overlap between
government summaries (which are anonymous) and cases identified by name in
the research literature.
When measured against the denominator of the number of research awards
or research investigators, the range of misconduct-in-science cases cited above is
small.2 Furthermore, less than half of the allegations of misconduct received by
government agencies have resulted in confirmed findings of misconduct in
science. For example, after examining 174 case files of misconduct in science in
the period from March 1989 through March 1991, the Office of Scientific
Integrity in the Public Health Service found evidence of misconduct in fewer than
20 cases, although 56 investigations, mostly conducted by universities, were still
under way (Wheeler, 1991).
However, even infrequent incidents of misconduct in science raise serious
questions among scientists, research sponsors, and the public about the integrity
of the research process and the stewardship of federal research funds.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

INCIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEPUBLISHED

EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION
The incidence of misconduct in science and the significance of several
confirmed cases have been topics of extensive discussion. Measures of the
incidence of misconduct in science include (1) the number of allegations and
confirmations of misconduct-in-science cases recorded and reviewed by
government agencies and research institutions and (2) data and information
presented in analyses, surveys, other studies, and anecdotal reports.
Some observers have suggested that incidents of misconduct in science are
underreported. It may be difficult for co-workers and junior scientists, for
example, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, to make allegations of
misconduct in science because of lack of supporting evidence and/or fear of
retribution. The significant professional discrimination and economic loss
experienced by whistle-blowers as a result of reporting misconduct are well
known and may deter others from disclosing wrongdoing in the research
environment.
Government Statistics on Misconduct in Science
Owing to differing perspectives on the role of government and research
institutions in addressing misconduct in science, and to discrepancies in the
number of allegations received by government offices, the number of open cases,
and the cases of misconduct in science confirmed by research institutions or
government agencies, many questions remain to be answered. These areas of
uncertainty and disagreement inhibit the resolution of issues such as identifying
the specific practices that fit legal definitions of misconduct in science; agreeing
on standards for the evidence necessary to substantiate a finding of misconduct in
science; clarifying the extent to which investigating panels can or should consider
the intentions of the accused person in reaching a finding of misconduct in
science; assessing the ability of research institutions and government agencies to
discharge their responsibilities effectively and handle misconduct investigations
appropriately; determining the frequency with which misconduct occurs;
achieving consensus on the penalties that are likely to be imposed by diverse
institutions for similar types of offenses; and evaluating the utility of allocating
substantial amounts of public and private resources to handle allegations, only a
few of which may result in confirmed findings of misconduct. The absence of
publicly available summaries of the investigation and adjudication of incidents of
misconduct

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

in science inhibits scholarly efforts to examine how prevalent misconduct in

science is and to evaluate the effectiveness of governmental and institutional
treatment and prevention programs.
As a result, analyses of and policies related to misconduct in science are
often influenced by information derived from a small number of cases that have
received extensive publicity. The panel has not seen evidence that would help
determine whether these highly publicized cases are representative of the broader
sample of allegations or confirmed incidents of misconduct in science. One trend
should be emphasized, however. The highly publicized cases often involve
charges of falsification and fabrication of data, but the large majority of cases of
confirmed misconduct in science have involved plagiarism (NSF, 1991a;
Wheeler, 1991). Possible explanations for this trend are that plagiarism is more
clearly identifiable by the complainants and more easily proved by those who
investigate the complaint.
Five semiannual reports prepared by the National Science Foundation's
Office of Inspector General (NSF 1989c; 1990a,b; 1991a,c) and a 1991 annual
report prepared by the Office of Scientific Integrity Review of the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS, 1991b) are the first systematic
governmental efforts to analyze characteristics of a specific set of cases of
misconduct in science. Although the treatment of some individual cases reported
in these summaries has been the subject of debate and controversy, the panel
commends these analyses as initial efforts and suggests that they receive
professional review and revisions, if warranted.
National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation's (NSF's) Office of Inspector General
(OIG) received 41 allegations of misconduct in science in FY 1990 and reviewed
another group of 6 allegations received by NSF prior to 1990 (NSF, 1990b).3
From this group of 47 allegations, OIG closed 21 cases by the end of FY 1990. In
three cases NSF made findings of misconduct in science; in another four cases,
NSF accepted institutional findings of misconduct in science. NSF officials
caution that, in their view, future cases may result in a larger percentage of
confirmed findings of misconduct because many of the open cases raise
complicated issues that require more time to resolve.4
The panel matched the 41 allegations reviewed by NSF in FY 1990 against
the definitions of misconduct in science used by NSF at that time (Table 4.1).
The NSF's Office of the Director recommended the most serious

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

penalty (debarment for 5 years) in a case involving charges of repeated incidents

of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and threats of professional and academic
blackmail by a co-principal investigator on NSF-funded research (NSF, 1990b, p.
21). Following an investigation that involved extensive interviews and affidavits,
NSF's OIG determined that "no federal criminal statutes were violated [but
that] the pattern and effect of the co-principal investigator's actions constituted a
serious deviation from accepted research practices" (NSF, 1990b, p. 21). NSF's
OIG further determined that these incidents were "an integral part of this
individual's performance as a researcher and research mentor and represented a
serious deviation from accepted research practices" (p. 27). However, reports of
this particular case have caused some scientists to express concern that the scope
of the definition of misconduct in science may be inappropriately broadened into
areas designated by the panel as "other misconduct," such as sexual harassment.
TABLE 4.1 Allegations of Misconduct in Science Reviewed in FY 1990 by the
National Science Foundation
Category

Number of Allegations

Fabrication or falsification

Plagiarism

Other deviant research practices

Violations of other research conduct regulations

Violations of other legal requirements governing research

TOTAL

41d

NOTE: The table represents the categories assigned by the panel to the allegations themselves.
NSF's OIG does not necessarily endorse these categories, nor does it necessarily regard all these
cases as exemplifying misconduct in science.
a Allegations of deviant practices included unauthorized use of research preparations, failure to
identify original authors of proposal, tampering with others' experiments, discrimination by a
reviewer or research investigator, and exploitation of a subordinate.
b Alleged violation of recombinant DNA regulations.
c Alleged violations included financial conflict of interests under award by an investigator or
reviewer, NSF staff mishandling of proposal or award, and violation of a sanction against a
principal investigator.
d Some allegations involved more than one form of misconduct.
SOURCE: Based on data from Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation (personal
communications on December 27, 1990, and February 22, 1991).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Department of Health and Human Services

In FY 1989 and FY 1990, following the creation of the Office of Scientific
Integrity (OSI), the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) received
a total of 155 allegations of misconduct in science, many of which had been
under review from earlier years by various offices within the Public Health
Service (PHS).5 In April 1991, OSI reported that since its formation it had closed
about 110 cases, most of which did not result in findings of misconduct in
science.
The Office of Scientific Integrity Review (OSIR), in the office of the
assistant secretary for health, reviewed 21 reports of investigations of misconduct
in science in the period from March 1989 to December 1990, some of which
involved multiple charges.6 The cases reviewed by OSIR had been forwarded to
that office by OSI and had completed both an inquiry and investigation stage.
Findings of misconduct in science, engaged in by 16 individuals, were made in 15
of the reports of investigations reviewed by OSIR. The OSIR's summary of
findings is given in Table 4.2.
The OSIR recommended debarment in six cases, the most extreme
administrative sanction available short of referral to the Justice Department for
criminal prosecution. Actions to recover PHS grant funds were undertaken in two
cases.
Consequences of Confirmed Misconduct
Confirmed findings of misconduct in science can result in governmental
penalties, such as dismissal or debarment, whereby individuals or institutions can
be prohibited from receiving government grants or contracts on a temporary or
permanent basis (42 C.F.R. 50). An individual who presents false information to
the government in any form, including a research proposal, employment
application, research report, or publication, may be subject to prosecution under
the False Claims Act (18 U.S.C. 1001). At least one case of criminal prosecution
against a research scientist, for example, rested on evidence that the scientist had
provided false research information in research proposals and progress reports to a
sponsoring agency.7 Similar prosecutions have occurred in connection with some
pharmaceutical firms or contract laboratories that provided false test data in
connection with licensing or government testing requirements (O'Reilly, 1990).
Government regulations on misconduct in science provide a separate
mechanism through which individuals and institutions can be

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

subjected to government penalties and criminal prosecution if they misrepresent

information from research that is supported by federal funds, even if the
information is not presented directly to government officials. Research
institutions and scientific investigators who apply for and receive federal funds
are thus expected to comply with high standards of honesty and integrity in the
performance of their research activities.
TABLE 4.2 Findings of Misconduct in Science in Cases Reviewed by the Office of
Scientific Integrity Review, Department of Health and Human Services, March 1989 to
December 1990
Type of Allegation

Findings of Misconduct (15 investigations)

Fabrication or falsification

Plagiarism

Other deviant research practices

TOTAL

18a

a The total of findings of misconduct is larger than the number of investigations because some
cases had multiple findings.
SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services (1991b).

Government Definitions of Misconduct in ScienceAmbiguity

in Categories
The PHS's misconduct-in-science regulations apply to research sponsored by
all PHS agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Alcohol, Drug
Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the
Food and Drug Administration, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research. The PHS defines misconduct in science as ''fabrication, falsification,
plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly
accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting
research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations
or judgments of data" (DHHS, 1989a, p. 32447). 8
The PHS's definition does not further define fabrication, falsification,
plagiarism, or other serious deviations from commonly accepted research
practices. The ambiguous scope of this last category is a topic of major concern to
the research community because of the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

perception that it could be applied inappropriately in cases of disputed scientific

judgment.
The first annual report of the DHHS's OSIR suggests the types of alleged
misconduct in science that might fall within the scope of this category (DHHS,
1991b):
Misuse by a journal referee of privileged information contained in a
manuscript,
Fabrication of entries or misrepresentation of the publication status of
manuscripts referenced in a research bibliography,
Failure to perform research supported by a PHS grant while stating in
progress reports that active progress has been made,
Improper reporting of the status of subjects in clinical research (e.g.,
reporting the same subjects as controls in one study and as experimental
subjects in another),
Preparation and publication of a book chapter listing co-authors who
were unaware of being named as co-authors,
Selective reporting of primary data,
Unauthorized use of data from another investigator's laboratory,
Engaging in inappropriate authorship practices on a publication and
failure to acknowledge that data used in a grant application were
developed by another scientist, and
Inappropriate data analysis and use of faulty statistical methodology.
The panel points out that most of the behaviors described above, such as the
fabrication of bibliographic material or falsely reporting research progress, are
behaviors that fall within the panel's definition of misconduct in science proposed
in Chapter 1.
The NSF's definition (NSF, 1991b) is broader than that used by the PHS9
and extends to nonresearch activities supported by the agency, such as science
education. NSF also includes in its definition of misconduct in science acts of
retaliation against any person who provides information about suspected
misconduct and who has not acted in bad faith.
The panel believes that behaviors such as repeated incidents of sexual
harassment, sexual assault, or professional intimidation should be regarded as
other misconduct, not as misconduct in science, because these actions (1) do not
require expert knowledge to resolve complaints and (2) should be governed by
mechanisms that apply to all institutional members, not just those who receive
government research awards. Practices such as inappropriate authorship, in the
panel's view, should be regarded as questionable research practices,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

because they do not fit within the rationale for misconduct in science as defined
by the panel in Chapter 1.
The investigation of questionable research practices as incidents of alleged
misconduct in science, in the absence of consensus about the nature,
acceptability, and damage that questionable practices cause, can do serious harm
to individuals and to the research enterprise. Institutional or regulatory efforts to
determine "correct" research methods or analytical practices, without sustained
participation by the research community, could encourage orthodoxy and rigidity
in research practice and cause scientists to avoid novel or unconventional research
paradigms.10
Reports from Local Institutional Officials
Investigatory Reports
Government regulations currently require local institutions to notify the
sponsoring agency if they intend to initiate an investigation of an allegation of
misconduct in science. The institutions are also required to submit a report of the
investigation when it is completed. These reports, in the aggregate, may provide a
future source of evidence regarding the frequency with which misconduct-inscience cases are handled by local institutions.
Although some investigatory reports have been released on an ad hoc basis,
research scientists generally do not have access to comprehensive summaries of
the investigatory reports prepared or reviewed by government agencies. The
absence of such summaries impedes informed analysis of misconduct in science
and inhibits the exchange of information and experience among institutions about
factors that can contribute to or prevent misconduct in science.
Other Institutional Reports
The perspectives and experiences of institutional officials in handling
allegations of misconduct in science are likely in the future to be important
sources of information about the incidence of misconduct. This body of
experience is largely undocumented, and most institutions do not maintain
accessible records on their misconduct cases because of concerns about
individual privacy and confidentiality, as well as concerns about possible
institutional embarrassment, loss of prestige, and lawsuits.
The DHHS's regulations now require grantee institutions to provide annual
reports of aggregate information on allegations, inquiries,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

and investigations, along with annual assurances that the institutions have an
appropriate administrative process for handling allegations of misconduct in
science (DHHS, 1989a). The institutional reports filed in early 1991 were not
available for this study. These institutional summaries could eventually provide
an additional source of evidence regarding how frequently misconduct in science
addressed at the local level involves biomedical or behavioral research. If the
reports incorporate standard terms of reference, are prepared in a manner that
facilitates analysis and interpretation, and are accessible to research scientists,
they could provide a basis for making independent judgments about the
effectiveness of research institutions in handling allegations of misconduct in
science. The NSF's regulations do not require an annual report from grantee
institutions.
International Studies
Cases of misconduct in science have been reported and confirmed in other
countries. The editor of the British Medical Journal reported in 1988 that in the
1980s at least five cases of misconduct by scientists had been documented in
Britain and five cases had been publicly disclosed in Australia (Lock, 1988b,
1990). As a result of a "nonsystematic" survey of British medical institutions,
scientists, physicians, and editors of medical journals, Lock cited at least another
40 unreported cases.
There has been at least one prominent case of misconduct in science in India
recently (Jayaraman, 1991). Several cases of misconduct in science and academic
plagiarism have been recorded in Germany (Foelsing, 1984; Eisenhut, 1990).
Analyses, Surveys, and Other Reports
Hundreds of articles on misconduct in science have been published in the
popular and scholarly literature over the past decade. The study panel's own
working bibliography included over 1,100 such items.
Although highly publicized reports about individual misconduct cases have
appeared with some frequency, systematic efforts to analyze data on cases of
misconduct in science have not attracted significant interest or support within the
research community until very recently. Research studies have been hampered by
the absence of information and statistical data, lack of rigorous definitions of
misconduct in science, the heterogeneous and decentralized nature of the research
environment, the complexity of misconduct cases, and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

the confidential and increasingly litigious nature of misconduct cases (U.S.

Congress, 1990b; AAAS-ABA, 1989).
As a result, only a small number of confirmed misconduct cases have been
the subject of scholarly examination. The results of these studies are
acknowledged by their authors to be subject to statistical bias; the sample, which
is drawn primarily from public records, may or may not be representative of the
larger pool of cases or allegations. Preliminary studies have focused primarily on
questions of range, prevalence, incidence, and frequency of misconduct in
science. There has been little effort to identify patterns of misconduct or
questionable practices in science. Beyond speculation, very little is known about
the etiology, dynamics, and consequences of misconduct in science. The
relationship of misconduct in science to factors in the contemporary research
environment, such as the size of research teams, financial incentives, or
collaborative research efforts, has not been systematically evaluated and is not
known.
Woolf Analysis
Patricia Woolf of Princeton University, a member of this panel, has analyzed
incidents of alleged misconduct publicly reported from 1950 to 1987 (Woolf,
1981, 1986, 1988a).
Woolf examined 26 cases of misconduct identified as having occurred or
been detected in the period from 1980 to 1987, the majority of which (22 cases)
were in biomedical research. Her analysis indicated that 11 of the institutions
associated with the 26 cases were prestigious schools and hospitals, ranked in the
top 20 in the Cole and Lipton (1977) evaluation of reputation. Woolf found that a
"notable percentage" of the individuals accused of misconduct were from highly
regarded institutions: "seven graduated from the top twenty schools" (Woolf,
1988a, p. 79), as ranked by reputation, an important finding that deserves further
analysis. She also suggested that because cases of misconduct are often handled
locally, the total number of cases is likely to be larger than reported in the public
record (Woolf, 1988a).
The types of alleged misconduct reported in the cases analyzed by Woolf,
some of which involved more than one type, included plagiarism (4 cases);
falsification, fabrication, and forgery of data (12 cases); and misrepresentation
and other misconduct (12 cases). She suggested that "plagiarism is almost
certainly under-represented in this survey, as it appears to be handled locally and
without publicity whenever possible" (Woolf, 1988a, p. 83).
Woolf identified several important caveats, noted below, that still

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

apply to all systematic efforts to analyze the characteristics and demography of

misconduct in science (Woolf, 1988a, p. 76):
Small number of instances. There are not enough publicly known cases
to draw statistically sound conclusions or make significant
generalizations, and those that are available are a biased sample of the
population of actual cases.
Blurred categories. It is not possible in all cases to cleanly separate
misconduct in science from falsification in drug trials or laboratory
tests. Similarly, one person may indulge in plagiarism, fabrication, and
falsification.
Incomplete information. Some information about reported instances is
not yet available.
Variety of sources. The sources of information (for Woolf's analysis)
include public accounts, such as newspaper reports, as well as original
documents and interview material. They are not all equally reliable with
regard to dates and other minor details.
Unclear resolution. Disputed cases that have nevertheless been "settled"
are included (in Woolf's analysis). In some highly publicized cases of
alleged misconduct in science, the accused scientist has not admitted,
and may have specifically denied, misconduct in science.
OSIR Analysis
The DHHS's OSIR prepared a first annual report in early 1991 that analyzed
data associated with investigations of misconduct in science reviewed by that
office in the period March 1989 through December 1990 (DHHS, 1991b). The
report examined misconduct investigations carried out by research institutions
and by the OSI.
Seniority of Subjects of Misconduct Cases in Woolf and OSIR Analyses .
Both Woolf and the OSIR examined the rank of individuals who have been the
subjects of misconduct-in-science cases. Although some have speculated that
junior scientists might be more likely to engage in misconduct in science, both
Woolf's analysis and the OSIR's analysis suggest that misconduct in science "did
not occur primarily among junior scientists or trainees" (DHHS, 1991b, p. 7).
Their preliminary studies suggest that the incidence of misconduct is likely to be
greater among senior scientists (Table 4.3), a finding that deserves further
analysis.
Detection of Misconduct in Science in Woolf and OSIR Analyses. Woolf and
the OSIR examined processes used to detect incidents of confirmed

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

or suspected misconduct in science and also analyzed the status of individuals

who disclosed these incidents (Tables 4.4 and 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.
TABLE 4.3 Academic Ranks of Subjects in Confirmed Cases of Misconduct in
Science
Number of Subjects
Rank

1980-1987a

1989-1990b

Full or associate professor, or senior scientist/

laboratory chief

Assistant professor

Research associate/fellow

Various posts held

No academic appointment/technicians

Unknown

a
b

Data from Woolf (1988a).

Department of Health and Human Services (1991b).

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.
The Acadia Institute Survey
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

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Association for the Advancement of Science. Approximately 75 percent (294) of

the graduate deans responded to the survey.
TABLE 4.4 Primary Sources of Detection of Alleged Misconduct (1980 to 1987)
Factor

Number of Cases

Admission

Co-worker or former co-worker reported: Laboratory suspicions,

irregular procedures

Misuse of funds

Inability to replicate or continue work

Institutional review board raised questions

Scientists at other institutions reported suspicions (including

inability to replicate work)

Editorial peer review

Promotion review of publications

Formal audit

Protest by original author (plagiarism)

Unknown

NOTE: Some instances were or seem to have been suspected or detected at about the same time
by more than one factor. From the available record it is difficult to make a clear distinction
between factors that enabled detection of misconduct in science and those used to demonstrate or
prove it.
SOURCE: Data from Woolf (1988a).

The Acadia Institute survey data indicate that 40 percent (118) of the
responding graduate deans had received reports of possible faculty misconduct in
science during the previous 5 years. Two percent (6) had received more than five
reports. These figures suggest that graduate deans have a significant chance of
becoming involved in handling an allegation of misconduct in science.
The survey shows that about 190 allegations of misconduct in science were
addressed by CGS institutions over the 5-year period (1983 to 1988) reported in
the survey. It is not known whether any or all of these allegations were separately
submitted to government offices concerned with misconduct in science during
this time period, although overlap is likely.
The Acadia Institute survey also suggests, not surprisingly, that allegations
of misconduct in science are associated with institutions that receive significant
amounts of external research funding. As noted in the NSF's OIG summary
report of the Acadia Institute survey: "Of the institutions receiving more than $50
million in external research funding annually, 69 percent [36] had been notified
of possible

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

faculty misconduct. Among institutions receiving less than $5 million, only 19

percent [14] had been so notified" (NSF, 1990d, pp. 2-3).
TABLE 4.5 Status of Individual Bringing Allegations
Status

Number of Cases

Supervisor (e.g., department chair, laboratory chief)

Colleague (scientific associate of about the same seniority or

status)

Collaborator

Junior scientific associate

Graduate student or postdoctoral trainee

Laboratory technician

Chair of a department at another institution

Self (self-report of misconduct by the subject)

SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services (1991b).

When asked about cases of verified misconduct by their faculties during the
previous 5 years, 20 percent (59) of all the responding graduate deans indicated
such instances. Among universities with over $50 million per year in external
funding (about 55 institutions fell within this category in 1988), 41 percent (20)
had some verified misconduct, according to responses of graduate deans
participating in the Acadia Institute survey. The actual number of cases associated
with these percentages, which is small, is consistent with the panel's observation
that the total number of confirmed cases of misconduct in science is very small.
Nevertheless, reports indicating that prestigious research institutions consistently
receive, and confirm, allegations of misconduct in science are disturbing.
Other Reports
Bechtel and Pearson. Bechtel and Pearson (1985) examined both the
question of prevalence of misconduct in science and the concept of deviant
behavior by scientists as part of a larger exploration of "elite occupational
deviance" that included white collar crime. The authors reviewed 12 cases of
misconduct in science, drawn from reports in the popular and scientific press in
the 1970s and early 1980s. They found that available evidence was inadequate to
support accurate generalizations about how widespread misconduct in science
might

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

be. As to the causes of deviant behavior, the authors concluded that "in the debate
between those who favor individualistic explanations based on psychological
notions of emotional disturbance, and the critics of big science who blame the
increased pressures for promotion, tenure, and recognition through publications,
one tends to see greater merit in the latter" (p. 244). They suggested that further
systematic examination is required to determine the appropriate balance between
individual and structural sources of deviant behavior.
Sigma Xi Study. As part of a broader survey it conducted in 1988, Sigma Xi,
the honor society for scientific researchers in North America, asked its members
to respond to the following statement: "Excluding gross stupidities and/or minor
slip ups that can be charitably dismissed (but not condoned), I have direct
knowledge of fraud (e.g., falsifying data, misreporting results, plagiarism) on the
part of a professional scientist."13
Respondents were asked to rank their agreement or disagreement with the
statement on a five-point scale. The survey was mailed to 9,998 members of the
society; about 38 percent responded (which indicates a possible source of bias).
Although 19 percent of the Sigma Xi respondents indicated that they had
direct knowledge of fraud by a scientist, it is not certain from the survey whether
direct knowledge meant personal experience with or simply awareness of
scientific fraud. It is also possible that some respondents were referring to
identical cases, and respondents may have reported knowledge of cases gained
secondhand. Furthermore, it is not clear what information can be gained by
having respondents rank "direct knowledge" on a five-point scale of agreement
and disagreement.
Additional Information. Estimates about the incidence of misconduct in
science have ranged from editorial statements that the scientific literature is
"99.9999 percent pure" to reader surveys published in scientific journals
indicating that significant numbers of the respondents have had direct experience
with misconduct of some sort in science.14 The broad variance in these estimates
has not resolved uncertainties about the frequency with which individuals or
institutions actually encounter incidents of misconduct in science.
In March 1990, the NSF's OIG reported that, based on a comprehensive
review of the results from past surveys that attempted to measure the incidence of
misconduct in science, "the full extent of misconduct is not yet known" (NSF,
1990d, p. 9). The NSF reports found that only a few quantitative studies have
examined the extent of misconduct in science and that prior survey efforts had
poor

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

response rates, asked substantively different questions, and employed varying

definitions of misconduct. These efforts have not yielded a database that would
provide an appropriate foundation for findings and conclusions about the extent
of misconduct in science and engineering. 15
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The panel found that existing data are inadequate to draw accurate
conclusions about the incidence of misconduct in science or of questionable
research practices. The panel points out that the number of confirmed cases
of misconduct in science is low compared to the level of research activity in
the United States. However, as with all forms of misconduct, underreporting
may be significant; federal agencies have only recently imposed procedural
and reporting requirements that may yield larger numbers of reported
cases. The possibility of underreporting can neither be dismissed nor
confirmed at this time. More research is necessary to determine the full
extent of misconduct in science.
Regardless of the incidence, the panel emphasizes that even infrequent
cases of misconduct in science are serious matters. The number of confirmed
incidents of misconduct in science, together with the possibility of
underreporting and the results presented in some preliminary studies,
indicate that misconduct in science is a problem that cannot be ignored. The
consequences of even infrequent cases of misconduct in science require that
attention be given to appropriate methods of treatment and prevention.
NOTES
1. Reports of cases involving findings of misconduct in science were provided to the panel by DHHS
and NSF. These reports indicate a total of 15 cases of findings of misconduct in science by DHHS in
the period from March 1989 to December 1990 and 3 cases of findings of misconduct in science by
NSF in the period from July 1989 to September 1990. See NSF (1990b) and DHHS (1991b).
Information was also provided in a personal communication from Donald Buzzelli, staff associate,
OIG, NSF, February 1, 1991.
Congressional testimony by and telephone interviews with NIH and ADAMHA officials indicated
that in the period from 1980 to 1987, roughly 17 misconduct cases handled by these agencies resulted
in institutional findings of research misconduct, some of which are included in the Woolf analysis
discussed below. During this same period, NSF made findings of misconduct in science in seven
cases. See the testimony of Katherine Bick and Mary Miers in U.S. Congress (1989a); see also Woolf
(1988a).
The report by Woolf (1988a) identified 40 publicly reported cases of alleged misconduct in science in
the period from 1950 to 1987, many of which involved confirmed

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

findings of misconduct. Another two dozen or so cases of alleged misconduct in science were
reported in congressional hearings in the 1980s. Some of the cases discussed in congressional
hearings and in the Woolf analysis are included in the NSF and DHHS reports mentioned above.
Some cases discussed in congressional hearings are still open, and the remainder have been closed
without an institutional finding of misconduct in science.
The estimate of confirmed cases of misconduct in science does not include cases in which research
institutions have made findings of misconduct, unless these cases are included in the Woolf analysis
or the congressional hearings mentioned above. During the time of this study, there were no central
records for institutional reports on misconduct in science that would indicate the frequency with
which these organizations found allegations to have merit.
Finally, several authors have reviewed selected cases of misconduct in science, both contemporary
and historical. The most popular accounts are a book by Broad and Wade (1982), who cite 34 cases
of ''known or suspected cases of scientific fraud" ranging from "ancient Greece to the present day"; a
book by Klotz (1985); and one by Kohn (1986), who cites 24 cases of "known or suspected
misconduct." These texts, and the government reports, congressional hearings, and Woolf analysis
cited above, discuss many of the same cases.
2. The preamble to the PHS's 1989 regulations for scientific misconduct notes that "reported instances
of scientific misconduct appear to represent only a small fraction of the total number of research and
research training awards funded by the PHS" (DHHS, 1989a, p. 32446). The preamble to the NSF's
1987 misconduct regulations states that "NSF has received relatively few allegations of misconduct
or fraud occurring in NSF-supported research or proposals" (NSF, 1987, p. 24466).
Furthermore, according to the National Library of Medicine, during the 10-year period from 1977 to
1986, about 2.8 million articles were published in the world's biomedical literature. The number of
articles retracted because of the discovery of fraud or falsification of data was 41, less than 0.002
percent of the total. See Holton (1988), p. 457.
3. Analyses of the NSF's experience are complicated by the fact that different offices have held
authority for handling research misconduct cases. Prior to the creation of the OIG in March 1989, this
authority was assigned to the NSF's Division of Audit and Oversight. The OIG "inherited"
approximately 19 case files, and it received 6 new allegations of research misconduct during FY
1989. NSF officials reported in 1987 that NSF had examined 12 charges of research misconduct, 7 of
which were found to be warranted, of which 3 were considered minor violations. See Woolf (1988a).
4. Personal communication, OIG, NSF, February 1, 1991.
5. Personal communication, Jules Hallum, director, OSI, February 27, 1991.
6. Four of these investigations were conducted by the PHS. Sixteen were conducted by outside,
primarily grantee, institutions. One additional investigation was an intramural case within the PHS.
7. See the documentation regarding the case of psychologist Stephen Breuning as detailed in the
DHHS's Report and Recommendations of a Panel to Investigate Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
under Grants MH-32206 and MH-37449, April 20, 1987.
8. The definition excludes violations of regulations that govern human or animal experimentation,
financial or other record-keeping requirements, or the use of toxic or hazardous substances. It applies
to individuals or institutions that apply for as well as those that receive extramural research,
research-training, or research-related grants or cooperative agreements under the PHS, and to all
intramural PHS research. In the proposed rule, the PHS's definition of misconduct included a second
clause referring

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

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 in Research and
Graduate Education: Results of a Survey of Graduate School 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.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

5
Handling Allegations of Misconduct in
ScienceInstitutional Responses and
Experience
UNIVERSITY-GOVERNMENT APPROACHES
Growing Interaction in the 1980s
Public discussions of cases involving misconduct in science are common
today in research seminars or professional meetings, but such discussions were
rare until the past decade.1 Congressional hearings convened in 1980 by the
House Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, chaired by then Rep. Albert Gore, were the first systematic public
examination of reports of fraud in biomedical research (U.S. Congress, 1981a).
Prior to the mid-1980s, academic institutions sometimes examined
allegations of misconduct in science through faculty conduct committees or other
disciplinary procedures. But reports of formal investigations were rarely
communicated to research sponsors, editors, or other research scientists; more
commonly, misconduct-in-science cases were handled privatelyif they were
handled at all. Many universities adopted procedural reforms for addressing
misconduct in science after a series of highly publicized cases in the early 1980s
revealed the shortcomings of institutional processes for dealing with cases
involving federal research funds (U.S. Congress, 1981b).
In 1985 Congress passed legislation (P.L. 100-504) requiring institutions

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

that receive Public Health Service (PHS) research funds to adopt an

administrative process for reviewing reports of scientific fraud. This legislation
also authorized the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) to adopt regulations to require assurances from PHS grantees that such
an administrative process was in place (DHHS, 1986). In fulfilling its obligation
under the legislation, the PHS issued interim guidelines in 1986 on policies and
procedures for handling alleged misconduct. Educational and scientific societies
such as the Association of American Universities, the Association of American
Medical Colleges, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
provided forums to review progress by the research institutions in complying with
the new regulatory requirements. In addition, educational, legal, and scientific
organizations suggested approaches to addressing allegations of misconduct in
science, assessing institutional experience in handling misconduct complaints,
and providing national and regional forums for the exchange of information and
experience in this area (AAU, 1983; AAMC, 1982; AAAS-ABA, 1989).
In 1989 the DHHS's Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported that most of
the research-intensive universities (institutions with 100 or more PHS awards)
had adopted formal policies and procedures for addressing allegations of
misconduct in science but that only 22 percent of all PHS institutional grantees
had such policies and procedures (DHHS, 1989d). The OIG report suggested that
many of the institutional policies and procedures were limited in scope and that
most did not require notification to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as the
1986 interim guidelines had suggested (DHHS, 1989d).2 The report found that
some grantee institutions had been waiting for final PHS regulations to be
promulgated before developing their own policies and procedures.
Following congressional hearings that criticized university and agency
responses to allegations of misconduct, the PHS, in 1989, published final
regulations requiring all applicant and grantee institutions to adopt misconduct
policies and procedures (42 C.F.R. 50).3 Although the regulations provide
general direction about procedural elements (such as requirements for an inquiry,
an investigation, disclosure, and notification), the specific content and scope of
misconduct policies and procedures remain at the discretion of the research
institutions. The procedural elements have been the subject of extensive debate
and discussion over the past 3 years as more experience has been acquired by
research institutions and federal agencies in the implementation of the
regulations.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

100

General Requirements
All research institutions that receive PHS funds must now provide
assurances that they have adopted policies and procedures to handle allegations
of misconduct in science. NSF also requires that a grantee institution have such
policies and procedures if that institution wishes NSF to defer to it for purposes
of inquiry and investigation of misconduct cases. Because research institutions
are able to design their own misconduct policies and procedures, institutional
responses to federal regulatory requirements are very diverse. At present
consensus is lacking about which procedural approaches are adequate responses
to federal regulatory requirements, and institutional and governmental officials
frequently disagree over fundamental matters of openness, completeness, or
timeliness.4
Institutions that receive PHS research awards are required to submit to the
DHHS's Office of Scientific Integrity Review (OSIR) an initial assurance and
annual reports of compliance indicating that they have adopted policies and
procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in science. PHS officials
review research and training grant applications to determine whether the
institutional assurance requirement has been met and may request copies of the
institution's policies for addressing misconduct in science. However, they do not
certify the acceptability of such institutional policies. PHS officials have judged
some institutional investigative reports to be inadequate, even though the reports
complied with local institutional policy and procedures for handling misconduct
in science.
More Specific Requirements Related to Misconduct Policies
and Procedures
Government regulations require that institutional policies and procedures
include two separate stages: an inquiry and an investigation. An inquirya
preliminary review of the complaint and other information to determine if there is
sufficient basis for an investigation of alleged misconductdoes not yield a
judgment on the question of guilt, although it can determine that an allegation
lacks merit.5 An investigation is a formal examination and evaluation of relevant
information to determine whether misconduct has occurred. Such an
investigation, often using a standing committee or an ad hoc panel of experts,
produces a report that includes findings, and possibly recommendations, that form
the basis for an adjudicatory decision by a responsible institutional official. In
cases where institutions find misconduct in science, government officials may
recommend penalties

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

101

including institutional oversight, certification of future research applications,

prohibition from service on government committees, or debarment. Government
agencies may initiate separate proceedings to adjudicate cases involving serious
offenses for which severe sanctions, such as a recommendation for debarment,
are to be considered.
Research institutions must inform the sponsoring agency in writing when the
institution decides to move from an inquiry to an investigation of an allegation of
misconduct in science (DHHS, 1989a). A final report of the misconduct
investigation must be submitted to the sponsoring agency, and the report may be
subject to disclosure in response to requests under the Freedom of Information
Act.
Both NSF and PHS rely on research institutions to conduct misconduct
inquiries and investigations. But if government officials determine that the report
of an institutional inquiry or investigation is not thorough, fair, objective, or
responsive to government regulatory requirements, the agencies may intervene
and investigate allegations of misconduct directly. The criteria for determining
what constitutes an "adequate" inquiry or investigation remain somewhat vague,
although PHS and NSF officials have made efforts to clarify the policies,
procedures, and criteria that guide their evaluations of investigative reports.6 7
Institutional Responses to Requirements
Before government agencies adopted regulations for handling allegations of
misconduct in science, most universities and other research centers addressed
such complaints through a variety of informal and formal, often confidential
processes. In the early 1980s, few academic institutions had formal policies or
procedures to review allegations of misconduct in science. For example, a 1982
survey indicated that fewer than one-quarter of the respondent academic
institutions and hospitals had written rules to deal with allegations of fraud but
that just over one-half were reportedly engaged in formulating such rules.8 The
survey found "vast differences of opinion" (p. 214) about the desirability or
necessity of rules or policies for responding to allegations of fraud in research as
well as "major disagreements" (p. 207) about the issues to be addressed by such
policies (Greene et al., 1985). Since that time, many academic institutions have
adopted policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in
science, but substantial variation remains in definitions and methods for
conducting inquires and investigations.
Although the DHHS's OSIR and the NSF's OIG have evaluated reports of
some misconduct investigations,9 the experience of research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

102

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.
Stage One: Misconduct Inquiry
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 memorandumwhich 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.
Stage Two: Misconduct Investigation
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

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

103

organizations. The OSIR's report describes the investigative process as follows

(DHHS, 1991b, p. 4):
The typical investigation conducted by institutions involved interviews of the
subject, the informant, and other relevant parties, review of publications,
manuscripts, or other documents, review of data notebooks, and in a few cases,
site visits to the laboratories involved. In 5 of the outside [i.e., non-PHS]
investigations, the subject was accompanied by legal counsel during meetings
with the panel, with counsel acting in an advisory capacity. Interviews were
recorded or transcribed in 6 of the outside investigations and in 2 of the PHS
investigations.
One institution held a formal hearing before a five-member "Hearing Board."
Provision was made for full disclosure of evidence prior to the hearing,
testimony from witnesses, cross examination of witnesses by the subject's
attorney, and written and oral summary positions at the end of the hearing. The
hearing transcript was made available within ten days and the record was kept
open for about two weeks to allow for additional information or comment.
The time required for outside institutions to complete investigations varied from
one to 12 months. The majority of the outside investigations for which PHS
accepted the conclusions were completed within 4 months (10 out of 16). One of
the investigations conducted by PHS components took 12 months, one lasted 9
months, one 7 months, one 3 months, and one 2.5 months.
There does not appear to be any systematic relationship between the nature of
the alleged misconduct and the amount of time required to conduct an
investigation.

In misconduct cases reviewed by PHS and NSF, research institutions have

sometimes imposed sanctions as a direct result of their investigations, in some
cases prior to or in addition to governmental actions. Private settlements between a
research institution and an individual accused of misconduct have also been
reported, in which an individual accused of misconduct agrees to resign in lieu of
the institution initiating a formal investigation, although such settlements may
not be consistent with government regulations. Cases involving serious offenses
that could result in dismissal or termination of funding usually have clear
distinctions between the investigative and adjudicatory stages. Most academic
institutions have specific procedures that must be followed before severe
disciplinary sanctions can be applied to tenured faculty. These procedures
typically are invoked after the misconduct investigation concludes that serious
misconduct did occur and that disciplinary action is warranted. In some cases, the
investigative panel may then refer the case to a faculty conduct committee or an
academic senate for adjudication. But ambiguity

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

104

remains as to whether an individual accused of misconduct in science is entitled

to a full disciplinary hearing for penalties or disciplinary sanctions that may be
mild, such as a letter of reprimand or mandatory supervision.
TABLE 5.1 Types of Local Institutional Actions Resulting from Misconduct
Investigations, March 1989 to December 1990
Penalty or Action

Number of Cases

Issued letter of reprimand

Terminated research support (i.e., would not allow subject to

continue as principal investigator)

Required review of future applications for research support

Informed future prospective employers of findings

Required correction of literature or withdrawal of manuscripts

Denied or revoked tenure

Dismissed subject or requested retirement

Accepted voluntary retirement

a Includes dismissal of an NIH intramural scientist.

SOURCE: Department of Health and Human Services (1991b).

The types of institutional actions taken in response to misconduct

investigations reviewed by the DHHS's OSIR are given in Table 5.1.
Findings, Discussion, and Conclusions
Government agencies, congressional oversight committees, and academic
institutions generally agree that the primary responsibility for handling
complaints of misconduct in science rests with the research organization.
However, the development and implementation of policies and procedures for
handling misconduct in science have been problematic. Some universities,
particularly small research institutions, are not prepared to accept responsibility
for pursuing allegations of misconduct in science.11 It is difficult for any
institution to investigate members of its own community, especially individuals
who hold positions of high esteem. In addition, some research institutions and
government agencies have made mistakes in investigations of complex cases,
such as appointing to investigatory panels members who have personal or
professional ties to the individuals who have been

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

105

accused of misconduct in science. All these factors foster a perception that

research institutions are not dealing effectively with misconduct in science,12
prompting criticism of the speed, rigor, honesty, fairness, and openness of the
mechanisms now used by academic institutions to address misconduct in science.
Public officials, journalists, and even some scientists themselves continue to
question whether universities are willing to address the problem of misconduct in a
vigorous and effective manner.13
However, the difficulties of maintaining informed awareness of existing
policies and procedures in the academic research environment should not be
underestimated. Scientists and students are highly mobile, and research centers
are decentralized organizational units within the university. Informing individuals
about appropriate methods for raising concerns about misconduct in the research
environment requires sustained collaboration among research administrators,
faculty, and laboratory directors.
Many universities have now established policies and procedures for handling
allegations of misconduct in science, and some research institutions have acquired
valuable experience in implementing these procedures to deal with cases of
misconduct. However, the legal and procedural issues associated with
misconduct-in-science investigations are extraordinarily complex, and there is
little case law in the public record to guide and inform analysis of these issues.
The panel believes that, in general, the current and evolving system of
government and institutional relationships requires more experience and
adjustments before specific policy or procedural changes can be
recommended. Research institutions and government agencies need to clarify
their own approaches and judgments on these issues before any general
consensus can be reached on procedural matters. The panel did not have a
sufficient base of institutional experience or consensus about these matters
within the academic community on which to develop recommendations
about the nature of institutional procedures for handling allegations of
misconduct in science.
Part of the difficulty in developing vigorous and effective institutional
responses to incidents or allegations of misconduct in science arises from
variation in and disagreement about essential elements of fairness, completeness,
and objectivity that should characterize investigations. Effective responses are
impeded also by recurring patterns of denial by some institutional officials and
faculty members who believe that misconduct in science is not a serious matter.
The pressures of conducting an objective investigation of complaints involving
respected or prestigious scientists cannot be underestimated.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

106

Strong and informed leadership is needed to clarify procedural matters and

to ensure that allegations or apparent incidents of misconduct in science are not
ignored or covered up.
Members of the research community and government officials agree that
deliberate efforts to misrepresent research findings or to distort the research
process should not be tolerated. Disagreement focuses on which acts of
misconduct should be subject to institutional or governmental penalties and what
methods are appropriate to respond to unprofessional behaviors that do not fit
institutional or regulatory definitions of misconduct in science.
Experience suggests that complainants, administrative officials, or
investigative panels may be unable to determine, at the outset, whether the
behavior in question constitutes misconduct in science, other misconduct, a
questionable research practice, or none of these. Allegations of misconduct are
sometimes based on uncertain or fragmentary information, and the nature of the
suspected offense may change as additional evidence is obtained.
Whatever procedures are adopted, the point of first contact and early
judgment in handling allegations of misconduct in science are extremely
important. Although it is necessary to preserve informality and flexibility in
handling individual complaints, some of which may be unfounded or mistaken, it
is also important to assure the credibility of the process by which these
complaints are addressed.
General Conclusions
Institutional policies and procedures should include a common entry point
for handling complaints from the outset; clear procedures are necessary for
determining which types of alleged offenses will be reviewed by administrative
staff or faculty. A sequence of steps to achieve resolution of significant disputes
is required. All of these steps require clear separations between each of the
following groups: the affected parties, those who are judging the seriousness of
the complaint and formulating the evidentiary base to substantiate charges, and
those who must adjudicate penalties based on charges of misconduct in science.
Disputes or accusations involving questions of scientific judgment or
questionable research practices are generally settled, whenever possible, by the
research process itself. However, when disputes involve specific charges of
misconduct in science or other misconduct, they cannot be resolved by scientists
alone. Institutional procedures, based on sound legal principles, are necessary to
determine whether such an allegation has substance and, if so, to implement
appropriate responses and penalties, if warranted.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

107

The appropriate treatment of misconduct allegations is time consuming and

costly, and it diverts faculty and administrative attention from other matters.
Questions about the integrity of an individual also create enormous emotional
stress; at least two incidents of suicide have been associated with the investigation
of misconduct allegations.
The Issue of Adjudication
Some authors have noted that confusion exists about the nature of the
investigative stage in both university and governmental investigations of
misconduct in science.14 Criminal and civil legal procedures traditionally
distinguish between ''investigations" and "adjudications" for purposes of due
process analysis (Andersen, 1988). "Investigations" are commonly thought to be
fact-gathering processes that precede formal charges. "Adjudications" are
deliberations as to the guilt or innocence of the individual who has been charged.
However, many institutional policies and procedures for addressing misconduct
in science do not specify this distinction. Thus in some cases, findings of guilt or
innocence, rather than charges of misconduct, may result from an investigative
panel's deliberations, leading to criticism that appropriate due process concerns
were not met in the investigation.
As a result, the amount of confidentiality appropriate for the investigative
stage has not been clearly resolved. Research institutions are required by NSF and
PHS regulations to inform the research sponsor when investigations have been
initiated, and some observers have suggested that moving from an inquiry to an
investigation is thus comparable to an indictment by the courts. Many individuals
in the scientific community have complained that the reputation of a subject of a
misconduct investigation is damaged simply by the announcement that an
investigation has been initiatedbefore the completion of the investigation and
before the subject of the investigation has had an opportunity to confront
witnesses or respond to evidence. Confusion is also compounded by the fact that
many scientists and others view the imposition of formal charges of misconduct
in science as a de facto adjudicatory decision.
The panel believes that institutional procedures should define explicit
and clear criteria that are to be used in determining when a misconduct
inquiry should proceed to a more formal investigation. The panel concludes
that administrative officials and faculty have a responsibility to inform all
members of their institution, especially junior personnel, of existing channels
for handling complaints about misconduct in science or other misconduct.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

108

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES

The Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation have
promulgated procedures for the federal agencies themselves in addressing
charges of misconduct in science. The federal procedures govern the handling of
such charges by the agencies and also serve as a model for universities. Federal
procedures are invoked if the university has not investigated alleged misconduct
or if the funding agency concludes that the university investigation was
inadequate. Federal procedures may also be invoked if the grantee institution
lacks the resources and the impartial personnel needed to conduct an
investigation. These procedures also apply if the funding agency seeks to impose
additional sanctions (Andersen, 1988).
During the period of the panel's study, various administrative and legislative
proposals were introduced to organize the government's activities in handling
allegations of misconduct in federally supported research programs. The panel
was not able to review fully each of these proposals, since some were published
late in the deliberative stages of the study.15 Recognizing the evolving character
of the organizational programs designed to address misconduct in science,
especially in the PHS, the panel did not attempt to define specific procedures for
federal agencies or the relationship of individual offices but focused instead on
issues pertinent to the roles and responsibilities of government in handling
allegations of misconduct in science.
The Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (P.L. 100-504) established
legislative authority for PHS regulations and other policies for identifying
incidents of misconduct in science involving the use of federal funds. Final
regulations were promulgated by PHS in 1989 (DHHS, 1989a). In the intervening
years, there was much confusion and uncertainty about the nature of the required
policies, the definitions of misconduct that should be incorporated into these
policies, and the relationship of institutional responsibilities to those of the
oversight agencies. NSF regulations, adopted in July 1987 and revised in May
1991 (NSF, 1987, 1991b), differ from the PHS regulations in some significant
matters.
Department of Health and Human Services
The responsibility for handling misconduct in science is divided between
two offices in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)the
Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) and the Office of Scientific Integrity Review
(OSIR). The DHHS's Office of Inspector

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

109

General (OIG) has prepared studies relevant to issues of misconduct in science

and may also open an investigation of cases that may involve criminal behavior.
In addition, the PHS has appointed misconduct policy officers in each funding
component.
Office of Scientific Integrity
The Office of Scientific Integrity, created in May 1989, is the administrative
unit that has oversight responsibilities for implementing the PHS policies and
procedures related to misconduct in science (DHHS, 1990a). Located in the office
of the NIH's director, OSI reviews misconduct-in-science allegations to determine
whether sufficient information exists for an institution (or OSI, if the allegation
cannot be referred to an institution) to conduct an inquiry under PHS regulations.
OSI monitors investigations conducted by institutions that receive PHS funds for
biomedical or behavioral research.
The OSI's policy is to conduct its own inquiry or investigations "if an
institution has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to conduct a thorough
and objective inquiry or investigation or if the institution's inquiry or investigation
does not adequately resolve the issue" (DHHS, 1990a, p. 8). OSI also carries out
misconduct investigations if PHS intramural research personnel are the subjects
of a complaint that has been substantiated after an inquiry.
The OSI provides the subjects of misconduct investigations with an
opportunity to review and comment on the investigative report and findings, as
well as sanctions that may be proposed, before OSI sends its findings to OSIR.
All these comments become a part of the record considered by the OSIR in its
review of the case.
Office of Scientific Integrity Review
The Office of Scientific Integrity Review is a component of the office of the
assistant secretary for health, who also serves as the head of the PHS. OSIR
establishes overall PHS policies and procedures for addressing misconduct in
science and reviews final reports of misconduct investigations (both
governmental and institutional) to ensure objectivity and fairness. When
misconduct in science has been established by OSI, OSIR makes final
recommendations to the assistant secretary for health regarding any sanctions to
be imposed by PHS. If debarment is recommended, the assistant secretary will
forward this recommendation to the DHHS's debarment official, who provides an
opportunity for a formal hearing by the subject of the proposed debarment.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

110

Office of Inspector General

The DHHS's Office of Inspector General has responsibilities for
investigating complaints about waste, fraud, and abuse involving DHHS funds in
areas such as Medicare and Medicaid payments and student loans. In a 1988
report on the handling of allegations of misconduct in science, OIG criticized the
arrangements and procedures used at that time by the PHS and recommended
that responsibilities for these matters be centralized (DHHS, 1989d). This report
preceded the formation of OSI and OSIR.
The OIG provides specialized expertise and authority to OSI and OSIR in
their efforts to address misconduct in science. If criminal behavior is suspected,
OIG may issue subpoenas or provide access to restricted information in
investigating charges of misconduct in science, and it has done so in at least one
case (DHHS, 1991b).
PHS ALERT System
The Public Health Service currently maintains the PHS ALERT system,
which is a system of records identifying individual investigators and institutions
that are under investigation for possible misconduct in science or who are subject
to penalties for such misconduct. As of mid-January 1991, the PHS ALERT
system had confidential records for 81 individuals and 5 institutions.
Responsibility for maintaining and managing the PHS ALERT system rests with
OSI. OSI searches the PHS ALERT system on a regular basis to compare the
records it contains with the list of PHS grant recipients. The name of an
investigator on file in the PHS ALERT system may be submitted to the funding
directors of an institute, who may use the information in making decisions about,
for example, advisory committee appointments and grant extensions.
Conflicting Views About Use of the PHS ALERT System. The identification
and possible mistreatment of individuals who are subjects of ongoing but
unresolved investigations have been criticized by many scientists. The
notification provided by the PHS ALERT system can jeopardize the award of
PHS research funds and government advisory appointments. Reputations can be
damaged by use of the PHS ALERT system prior to a determination of
misconduct, and some misconduct investigations can take several years to
complete. But government officials note that access to the PHS ALERT system is
restricted and contend that agency directors should have the opportunity to be
informed that a misconduct investigation is in process

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

111

prior to awarding research funds or making advisory committee appointments

involving a subject of such an investigation.
Panel Findings and Conclusions About Use of the PHS ALERT System. The
conflicting views about issues related to confidentiality were considered by the
panel. Fairness requires that the subject of misconduct investigations should have
an opportunity to respond to charges and evidence before the findings of the
investigation are communicated to others. In some cases, the first public notice of a
misconduct-in-science affair has come with the release of a draft report of an
investigation, before the subject has had an opportunity to respond. This situation
cannot be tolerated.
The use of the PHS ALERT system in disclosing the identities of
individuals who are under investigation for possible misconduct in science is
a serious flaw in the fairness of current governmental policies and
procedures. It is possible that incomplete information and unsubstantiated
allegations may jeopardize research awards or governmental appointments
and that individual scientists may be victimized by premature release of
draft investigative reports. The panel concludes that government agencies
should suspend the practice of disseminating notices of misconduct-inscience investigations in the PHS ALERT system until formal charges of
misconduct of science have been filed.
National Science Foundation
Responsibility for handling investigations and monitoring allegations of
misconduct in science in NSF programs and operations rests with the NSF's OIG.
This office, established by the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988,16 also
has responsibility for handling audits of grants, contracts, and cooperative
agreements funded by NSF, the financial misconduct of employees in connection
with their duties, as well as conflicts of interest involving NSF programs.
Responsibility for adjudication of findings of investigatory reports resides with
the Office of the NSF Director. Working with the general counsel and the
National Science Board, the NSF's director formulates NSF regulations on
misconduct in science, often in coordination with the Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the PHS. The OIG implements the portion of the
regulations that have to do with investigating misconduct in science. It publishes a
semiannual report each year for the Congress documenting its efforts and
providing summary data as well as specific examples of misconduct-in-science
cases that have been addressed by the office.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

112

The NSF's policy is that research institutions should be responsible "to the
greatest extent possible" for preventing and detecting misconduct in science and
for dealing with any allegations of misconduct that may arise (NSF, 1991a, p.
30). The NSF expects research institutions to conduct inquiries and
investigations, if warranted, into incidents of suspected or alleged misconduct.
The NSF's policy uses the concept of "deferral in the first instance" in
establishing its relationships with the research community. This policy recognizes
both the institution's commitment to maintain integrity in research and the
independence and autonomy society accords the research community. However,
it also places a critical obligation on an institution that requests and accepts
deferral. The institution is obliged to conduct an investigation that OIG can
recognize as accurate and complete. OIG must also be able to conclude that fair
and reasonable procedures in accord with due process were followed (NSF,
1991a, p. 31). NSF regulations, which share general similarities with but differ
from PHS regulations for addressing allegations of misconduct in science,
establish procedural requirements but rely on research institutions to establish
their own policies and procedures.
GOVERNMENTUNIVERSITY EFFORTSUNRESOLVED
ISSUES
The role of government agencies in handling alleged or suspected
misconduct in science has been the subject of extensive examination within the
academic and research community, government agencies, and the Congress.
Although there is strong consensus favoring the principle that universities should
bear the primary responsibility for addressing misconduct in science, there is
substantive disagreement about the methods by which this responsibility should
be exercised and the manner in which federal agencies should perform oversight.
Areas of Disagreement
The areas of disagreement include the following:

Definitions of misconduct in science. Government regulations offer

general definitions of misconduct in science but do not provide extensive
guidance about the scope of the definitions (e.g., defining fabrication,
falsification, or plagiarism). Institutional officers, faculty, and public
officials sometimes disagree about specific behaviors that constitute
misconduct in science. Disagreement over definitions

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

113

of misconduct in science in governmental and institutional policies and

procedures can lead to uncertainty about whether to include as
misconduct in science those cases that involve charges of incompetence,
science conducted with "reckless disregard" for the truth, and other
misconduct, such as sexual harassment, that may occur in the research
environment.17
Nature of evidentiary findings. University and government officials
sometimes differ on the nature of evidence that is necessary to
substantiate an allegation or suspicion of misconduct in science. For
example, some institutions have concluded that carelessness and poor
judgment do not constitute misconduct in science. Government officials
have sometimes disagreed with such findings, particularly when, in the
government's view, there was evidence to show that deception was
intentional. In other cases, government officials have criticized or
rejected institutional reports of inquiries or investigations as "defective"
when these reports lacked sufficient information to enable others to
assess the fairness or completeness of the institutional process.
There are also differences in evidentiary standards used by research
institutions and government agencies. Institutional officials may prefer
to use a higher standard of "clear and convincing" evidence or evidence
that is "beyond a reasonable doubt," while government officials may rely
on a less restrictive "preponderance-of-the-evidence" standard to
substantiate a finding of misconduct in science.
Due process requirements. There is confusion about the formal
procedures that are required in the resolution of allegations of
misconduct in science. Since government officials often rely on
institutional investigative reports in recommending possible sanctions,
there can be different expectations and standards of procedural clarity,
fairness, and objectivity. The OSI's approach, which has been criticized
(Hamilton, 1991a), maintains what it calls the "scientific dialogue"
model of investigation, in contrast to what OSI staff term the "legaladversarial" approach adopted by NSF, in the belief that the former
method can both reveal the scientific facts of the case and also secure the
due process rights of the respondent without inviting the difficulties of
adversarial proceedings.18
Some of the policies and procedures used by OSI in its investigations
and oversight have been challenged in the courts and criticized in the
press. Several problems have been identified: the inability of the
subjects and key witnesses of the investigations to review all evidence
until the compilation of the investigative report, premature disclosure of
draft reports in the press, and the absence of disclosure

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

114

of such draft reports to institutional officials who may be affected by the

outcome of the investigation.
Quality and timeliness of investigations. The NSF and PHS have the
authority to conduct their own investigations of alleged misconduct in
science, if the institutional reports are judged to be inadequate. Some
academic institutions believe that government agencies have been overly
intrusive or have disrupted academic investigations, especially when
public officials have intervened before a university has completed its
investigation. Both university and government investigations have been
criticized because of the lengthy period required to complete inquiries or
investigations in some misconduct cases.
Leaks of draft reports. In March 1991, draft reports of two misconductin-science cases under investigation by OSI were leaked to the press.19
According to OSI policy at that time, confidential drafts of the reports
were circulated to principals in the case, including subjects,
complainants, and institutional officials. Draft reports of misconduct
investigations often provide the first opportunity for subjects to review
statements and other evidence used in evaluating allegations against
them. The draft reports may be incomplete because they lack additional
information that can be provided by the subject or others in responding
to such statements.
Leaks of draft investigative reports represent a serious breach of
confidentiality and procedure that could prejudice not only the outcome of
particular cases, but also the fairness and security of OSI procedures. OSI has
taken steps to reduce the possibility of leaks by a change of procedures, whereby
significant witnesses (such as the original complainant) have only limited and
supervised access to the draft investigative report.20 However, the possibility
remains that individuals accused of misconduct may leak draft investigative
reports to serve their own interests. The damage to reputation that may occur from
public disclosure of draft investigative reports imposes greater requirements for
assurances that subjects accused of misconduct will have opportunities to respond
to charges and testimony prior to the preparation of the draft report.
Observations and Discussion
All of the issues listed above require attention. The quality of institutional
investigations of allegations of misconduct in science might be enhanced by a
critical examination of procedural experiencesespecially the opportunities to
respond to charges, question witnesses,21 and comment on draft reportsderived
from handling forms of

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

115

other misconduct in the academic environment. For example, information on the

disciplinary procedures used to address complaints of incompetence or alleged
violations of academic codes of conduct by faculty members of students might be
helpful in understanding how to deal with misconduct in science. Lessons could
also be derived from the experiences of other federal agencies in the investigation
of charges of Medicare or Medicaid fraud; charges alleging fabrication or
falsification of scientific data supporting new pharmaceutical products and
devices examined by the Food and Drug Administration; and alleged violations
of contractor performance in space, defense, agriculture, or energy-related
research programs. In exceptional cases, when deliberate institutional cover-ups
of misconduct in science investigations are suspected, governmental responses
should be guided by the same practices that govern cover-ups of contractor fraud
or financial misconduct.
The success of interactions among scientists, university representatives, and
government officials in handling allegations of misconduct in science can be
assured only if all groups agree about actions that constitute misconduct in
science and make a commitment to addressing misconduct in science by invoking
consistent, firm, and fair procedures.
THE ROLE OF THE COURTS
The courts have become centrally involved in disputes arising from
allegations and investigations of misconduct in science. A researcher who is the
subject of an allegation of misconduct may seek judicial examination of the
actions of the government or the university following or prior to the completion
of an investigation of the allegations. Those whose interests may be affected by
misconductfor example, those with interests in intellectual property that has
been appropriated or those with copyright interestsmay bring the subject of the
allegation before the courts. And in particularly egregious cases of misconduct,
the government may pursue criminal charges against the researcher. 22
Only in a few cases have the courts imposed criminal sanctions on scientists
found guilty of misconduct in science and other violations of research
regulations. The courts have imposed financial penalties as well as requirements
for community service.23 More recently, a court has considered policies and
procedures used by the PHS to guide daily operating processes in addressing
allegations of misconduct. The court concluded that these statements had not been
validly promulgated, and the case is now on appeal.24

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

116

Complainants in a misconduct dispute also have the right to involve the

courts. Federal law provides a cause of action termed a "qui tam action" in which a
private citizen may bring an action on behalf of the United States to recover
government funds. The private individual may be allowed in such a case to
receive a portion of those funds as a reward for pursuing the litigation. Such
actions have arisen in the context of misconduct in science cases, and the courts
have become involved in reviewing qui tam claims on several occasions (Cordes,
1990).
SPECIAL CONCERNS PROMPTED BY UNIVERSITY
GOVERNMENTCOURT INTERACTIONS
Five issues require special consideration in examining interactions among
research institutions, government agencies, and the courts in the handling of
allegations of misconduct in science:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Due process requirements for fair and objective institutional

investigations of alleged or suspected misconduct in science,
The consequences of misconduct inquiries and investigations,
Faculty participation in misconduct investigations,
The role of whistle-blowers, and
The problem of false allegations in misconduct investigations.
Due Process Requirements

The due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution requires that the government follow fair procedures before depriving
an individual of "life, liberty or property."25 The purpose of procedural due
process is not only to "prevent unfair and mistaken deprivations" of
constitutionally protected interests, 26 but also to allow affected persons to
participate in a decision of vital importance to them.27 If an affected interest is at
stake, the Constitution requires that the decision must be made using fair
procedures.
The due process clause applies only to "state action." Thus the constitutional
limitations directly affect decision making only by governmental entitiesin this
case, the funding agencies or state universities. Private universities may have
constraints on their decision-making processes that arise from contractual
relationships with faculty and staff that are similar to those imposed by the
Constitution. Hence the requirements of due process provide the benchmark
against which misconduct procedures should be evaluated.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

117

An individual may have a property interest in a research or faculty position,

particularly when the expectation of continued employment is explicitly granted
by tenure or contract.28 Moreover, a government debarment action or the
suspension of research funds might be seen as deprivations of a property or
liberty interest. If so, government investigations must follow stringent procedures
to minimize erroneous findings and meet the requirements of due process.
However, less severe penalties, such as a letter of reprimand or a requirement of
prior approval for particular activities, are probably not deprivations of
constitutionally protected interests. While these sanctions might injure a
scientist's reputation, such injury, absent a change in job status, is not recognized
by the Supreme Court as a deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest.29
The Supreme Court has developed a balancing test to determine specific
procedures that must be employed before an individual may be deprived of a
constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.30 On the side of the accused
the Court weighs the importance of the liberty or property interest at stake and the
extent to which the procedure at issue may reduce the possibility of erroneous
decision making. On the other side, the Court considers the government's interest
in not increasing its administrative and fiscal burdens.
Constitutionally required procedures are defined by a balancing process, and
detailed requirements emerge through case decisions. Although constitutional
protections apply only to actions by the government (i.e., a funding agency or a
state university), the need for a fair process applies to any resolution of a case
alleging misconduct in science. In order to accord with the principles of fairness
embodied in due process, procedures for resolving misconduct-in-science cases
probably should contain the following elements:31
1. A clear specification of what constitutes misconduct, as well as the
possible sanctions.
2. Assurance that when misconduct in science is alleged or suspected,
an initial inquiry will be made to determine if a hearing32 is
warranted. This inquiry should remain confidential in order to
protect the reputation of the accused from groundless or trivial
charges. It is not necessary to notify the accused or the research
sponsor of the inquiry.
3. Stipulation that if the evidence gathered from the initial inquiry
warrants a hearing, notice will be given to the accused and the
research sponsor of the charge and of the conduct or transaction(s) on
which it is based, as soon as possible, consistent with the protection
of evidence, particularly in potential criminal cases.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

118

4. Provision of a hearing conducted by impartial decision makers.

5. Prompt completion of the initial inquiry and hearing.
6. Assurance that, at a minimum, an individual found guilty of
misconduct in science will be provided with the investigation report
and given an opportunity to file a written objectionprocedures that
would generally be sufficient for mild sanctions such as a reprimand
(without a change in job status), special monitoring of future work,
or probation.
7. In hearings that consider more severe sanctions (suspension, salary
reduction, rank reduction, or termination of employment), a
requirement for many if not all of the following additional
procedures on behalf of the subject of the misconduct allegations: (a)
the opportunity to make an oral presentation to the decision maker;
(b) the opportunity to present evidence or witnesses to the decision
maker; (c) the opportunity to confront the witnesses against the
accused and/or to review the documentation that serves as evidence
of the allegations; (d) the right to have an adviser to assist in
presenting the accused's case to the decision maker;33 and (e) a
decision based on the record with a statement of reasons.
8. A statement of exoneration should be issued if misconduct is not
established.
Consequences of Misconduct Inquiriesand Investigations
An investigation can result in a finding of ''misconduct" or "no misconduct."
Research institutions, government and other sponsors, editors, prospective
employers, and others may take actions as a result of a finding of misconduct.
But if an inquiry or investigation does not establish a finding of misconduct in
science or identifies problems that do not meet the criteria for a finding of
scientific misconduct, the research sponsor or research institution may still take
remedial actions.
Government Sanctions
The results of a misconduct investigation must be reported to the
government research sponsor, and the sponsor may then determine what, if any,
sanctions should be imposed. In determining the appropriate sanction for a
particular act of scientific misconduct, government agencies consider (1) the
seriousness of the misconduct, (2) whether it was a deliberate or merely a
careless action, (3) whether it

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

119

was an isolated event or part of a pattern, and (4) whether it is relevant only to
certain funding requests or awards or to all requests and awards of the accused.34
The burden of proof is on the agency proposing the sanctions, and the agency
must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.35
The NSF groups its possible sanctions into three classes, ranging from the
least restrictive (such as a letter of reprimand) to the most severe (including
termination of a grant and recommendation for debarment).36 Individuals subject
to less severe restrictions are entitled to fewer procedural safeguards, whereas
procedures for imposing debarment are strictly defined.
The PHS categories for sanctions for misconduct differ slightly from those
adopted by NSF. OSIR has indicated taking a variety of actions in response to
findings of misconduct in science in addition to the actions implemented by the
research institutions (see Table 5.1). The OSIR's actions have included referral to
the DHHS's OIG (when there have been findings of possibly criminal offenses),
use of PHS sanctions (such as repayment of funds or debarment), and other
institutional penalties (such as "letters of admonishment to subjects or
institutions, a requirement that the employing institution send letters of reprimand
to the subjects, and a requirement that the subjects of an investigation send letters
of apology to the informant" (DHHS, 1991b, p. 6).
Remedial Actions
Some misconduct investigations have revealed problems that fall short of the
regulatory definitions of misconduct in science but are judged to warrant
remedial actions. These problems include "scientific sloppiness, incompetence,
poor laboratory management, and poor authorship practices" (DHHS, 1991b, p.
4). Failure to implement the remedial action can result in a loss of future funding
or other institutional penalties. Local institutions may also take remedial actions
(such as withdrawing a research proposal), even if an inquiry results in a finding
of no misconduct and no further investigation is conducted.
Faculty Participation in Misconduct Investigations
A particular problem arises when a government agency undertakes a review
of an investigation that has been completed by a university. The university
investigation is often undertaken by members of the research community who are
requested by university officials

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

120

to examine a matter that is usually complex and contentious. They are expected to
do so to the best of their abilities.
When a government agency decides to review the university investigation,
the agency makes clear that a potential for a conflict of interest exists between the
university that commissioned the investigation and the individuals who undertook
the investigation. Faculty members who participate in misconduct investigations
can find, unexpectedly, that they themselves are subjects of the government
agency review. If the risk and consequences to the university investigators from
the subsequent agency review are significant, universities face the possibility that
qualified university members will refuse to serve on committees that are formed
to carry out an inquiry or investigation of alleged misconduct in science. This
would be very unfortunate because it would serve to exclude those who may have
the best understanding of the context in which the alleged misconduct took place.
The Role of Whistle-blowers
Individuals who bring soundly based allegations of misconduct in science to
the attention of research institutions or government agencies perform an
important function. The act of charging a colleague with inappropriate behavior
requires both courage and the strong conviction that the observed behavior is
wrong. Many research institutions are able to respond immediately to reports of
suspected misconduct, and in these cases, the individual who originated the
complaint is not required to take further action. On some occasions, however,
individuals who initially disclosed misconduct have become the targets of
investigation or retaliation, especially if the accused person holds a position of
power or authority in the research institution. Many whistle-blowers have
reported having experienced professional discrimination and economic loss as a
result of their actions.37 These experiences can discourage others from reporting
misconduct in science.
Providing protections for whistle-blowers is difficult because the reprisals
that may be taken against them can be subtle and indirect. A researcher's
reputation, especially in the early stages of career development, depends greatly
not only on scientific and technical achievement, but also on positive
recommendations from collaborators and senior figures who can provide access
to research resources. It is also difficult to assure job protections in a research
enterprise that is often characterized by temporary and collaborative research
assignments.
Once the whistle-blower has made an allegation of misconduct to an
appropriate official, he or she is usually not a direct party to the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

121

misconduct inquiry or investigation. The whistle-blower may or may not serve as a

witness or provide documentation for the charges. A whistle-blower who is
dissatisfied with the adequacy of an institutional investigation may risk his or her
scientific career by presenting an accusation to governmental authorities or the
press. Some whistle-blowers have suffered serious harm even when their claims
were correct.38
Furthermore, the initiation of a formal complaint of misconduct in science
may result from a lengthy sequence of informal discussions and disputes between
the complainant, the subject of the allegation, and other colleagues. Thus, in the
human dimension, issues associated with the resolution of allegations of
misconduct can be quite problematic. The stress and personal animosities of these
cases can have a serious impact on the morale of an entire research group.
The Problem of False Accusations
When allegations of misconduct in science are misguided or malicious, the
target of the claim also can suffer serious harm. The need to support those who
report misconduct in science therefore must be balanced against the damage that
can be done to honest scientists by false or malicious allegations. It cannot be
assumed that all who bring allegations of misconduct in science are acting in
good conscience. Professional rivalries, personal conflicts, or other complicating
factors may stimulate false or malicious allegations, although the panel has not
seen evidence of such allegations in the public record. Individuals need to be
accountable for a complaint of misconduct in science, and appropriate
documentation should be provided at the time of an initial allegation to justify the
investment of institutional time and resources necessary to review the complaint.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Current Situation
The panel recognizes that the complexities of misconduct-in-science cases
and their disposition are only beginning to emerge. Several factors can inhibit
vigorous pursuit of misconduct-in-science allegations: concerns about individual
reputations and the potential loss of institutional prestige, the lack of explicit
channels for raising concerns about misconduct in science, confusion about the
distinction between inquiries and investigations in misconduct-in-science
procedures, the legal liability of institutions or of participants in the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

122

investigatory process, uncertainty about the legal standing of records of

institutional investigations, ambiguity about the level of documentation that is
sufficient to initiate or terminate inquiries or investigations, confusion about the
level of evidence that is necessary to sustain findings of misconduct in science,
and uncertainty about appropriate forms of disclosure of findings and sanctions.
Consideration of such matters by each research institution prior to the treatment
of an allegation or incident of misconduct in science would improve the process.
The panel is aware of the inherent difficulty posed by asking research
institutions to investigate allegations of misconduct in science that involve their
own members, especially when those members hold prominent positions of
prestige and respect. Internal investigations must demonstrate a fundamental
commitment to independence and objectivity to ensure their credibility and
success, and may be enhanced by the participation of members from outside the
affected organization. The objectivity of misconduct-in-science investigations
relies heavily on the credibility of the process used to arrive at findings and
recommendations. To maintain the privilege of self-regulation, research
institutions must exercise vigilance and diligence in examining the conduct of
their own members.
Current and hoc efforts to foster dialogue about misconduct in science, other
misconduct, and questionable research practices between research institutions and
government agencies have raised many questions about appropriate roles,
procedural flaws, and adequate resources in addressing these factors. There is a
growing expectation that confirmed findings of misconduct in science should be
reported to all individuals and institutions who might be affected.
The panel believes that it is important at this time to preserve
institutional flexibility and discretion in developing and applying policies and
procedures to address misconduct in science, but it is also important to
clarify the basic criteria that will be used by faculty, administrative and
governmental officials, and society as a whole in evaluating institutional
methods for handling allegations of misconduct in science. It is necessary to
include essential elements of fairness, objectivity, openness, and
confidentiality in the investigations of alleged misconduct, and to reconcile
competing interests, not only in principle but also in practice.
In considering protections for whistle-blowers in misconduct proceedings,
the panel formulated three fundamental principles:
1. Whistle-blowers should be assured that their claims will be taken
seriously and will receive full and fair consideration by responsible
officials.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

123

2. In some cases, whistle-blowers may seek anonymity as a protection

against reprisals and discrimination, especially while an inquiry or
investigation is in the early stages of development. While such
anonymity may be desirable, there may be practical constraints in
assuring confidentiality in a highly specialized research area or in a
small research team.
3. When reprisals against whistle-blowers are discovered, the
responsible individuals should be punished in accord with the
severity of the reprisals. The standards for examining complaints
about possible reprisals in the academic environment should be
consistent with those developed for federal employees under the
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.39
Balancing Accountability and the Need for Intellectual
Freedom
In the wake of procedural and policy reforms in response to incidents of
misconduct in science, representatives from the academic and scientific
community have raised concerns about the long-term or unintended effects that
might result from institutional or governmental intrusions into the research
environment.40 Aggressive efforts to control research practices, if carried to an
extreme, can damage the research enterprise. Balance is required. Inflexible rules
or requirements can increase the time and effort necessary to conduct research,
can discourage creative individuals from pursuing research careers, can decrease
innovation, and can in some instances make the research process impossible.
Governmental or regulatory efforts to define "correct" research conduct or
analytical practices can do fundamental harm to research activities if such efforts
encourage orthodoxy and rigidity and inhibit novel or creative research practices.
However, the panel concludes that allegations and incidents of
misconduct in science require a vigorous institutional response and that the
methods used by research institutions and government to address allegations
of misconduct in science need improvement. Research institutions sometimes
require advice or assistance in addressing allegations of misconduct in science
because of the complexities of these cases or because their faculty or
administrators are reluctant to address in a systematic manner complaints or
suspicions about possible misconduct in science. Research institutions have not
developed mechanisms for broad exchange of information and experience in
resolving difficult cases and consequently lack opportunities for learning from
each other. On several occasions, institutional officials have waited for direction
from government agencies before

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

124

clarifying their own procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in

science.
Need for an Independent Body as an Additional Resource
In considering responses by research universities, government, and the
courts to incidents of misconduct in science, the panel concludes that additional
resources are required to strengthen the processes and procedures used for
handling and resolving allegations of misconduct in science. This conclusion is
derived from the following findings:
First, the panel believes that some research institutions have been slow
to respond to and to pursue alleged cases of misconduct in science within
their own communities. The panel concludes that an independent
organization could be an effective resource to assist individual research
institutions by sharing knowledge of "best practice" among the
community.
Second, the research community has not been effective in responding to
criticism about its record in handling allegations of misconduct in
science. As a result, firsthand experiences in resolving problems of
fairness, responsiveness, and accuracy in misconduct proceedings are
often not systematically analyzed or disseminated to improve the
resources and methods used by research institutions in handling
allegations of misconduct in science.
The panel believes that a knowledgeable and credible voice is needed
in the debate about the effectiveness of the scientific community in
meeting the public interest. This perspective should not be tainted by the
accusation that a voice is protecting the interest of a particular research
institution or individual under scrutiny.
Third, the panel notes that several government agencies, notably the NSF
and the PHS, have established offices for dealing with allegations of
misconduct in science by their grantees. The panel is concerned about
the scope of current government definitions of misconduct in science,
the ability of government offices to handle allegations of misconduct in
science effectively, and the possibility that the system established to
handle misconduct in science could stray into matters that lie more
appropriately in the domain of the scientific community (such as the
detection of scientific error, the development of scientific
methodologies, or the rejection or confirmation of new theories of
scientific phenomena).
The panel concludes that the scientific community, Congress, federal
authorities, and the public should have a single, independent body

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

125

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.
NOTES
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 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 (AAASABA, 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 [1988]) established Offices of Inspector General in a number
of departments and smaller agencies, including NSF. In compliance

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

126

with the legislation, the National Science Board established the NSF's Office of Inspector General on
February 10, 1989.
17. See, for example, the minutes of the meetings of the OSIR Advisory Committee held July 15,
1991, and November 17, 1991 (DHHS, 1991d).
18. See, for example, Hallum and Hadley (1990).
19. See Hamilton (1991b) and Weiser, B. 1991. "NIH alleges misconduct by Georgetown scientist."
Washington Post (March 22):A1.
20. Personal communication, OSIR, June 19, 1991.
21. One particularly troubling issue in the investigation of allegations of misconduct in science
concerns the nature of the review or hearing that should be provided. Several principles of fairness,
confidentiality, and completeness may come into conflict during this stage. For example, should the
accused be allowed to cross-examine witnesses, including the complainant who filed the initial
allegation? Although a formal hearing may be appropriate when specific and serious penalties have
been proposed, there is no consensus that a subject is entitled to review testimony or to cross-examine
witnesses during the fact-gathering process designed to provide evidence to substantiate or dismiss
charges of misconduct in science. In contrast, there is general agreement that the subject should be
given access to the draft investigative report for rebuttals, modifications, or other amendments prior to
the formulation of specific charges or a dismissal of the complaint. Some institutions have also
provided access to the draft report to significant witnesses, including the initial complainant, although
this is not customary.
22. See 18 U.S.C. Sections 287, 1001 (1988); United States v. Breuning, No. K88-0135 (D.Md., Nov.
10, 1988).
23. For example, after a guilty plea on two counts of making false statements to the government on
grant applications (issued in exchange for dropping a charge of obstruction of the government's
investigation of his conduct), Stephen E. Breuning was sentenced in 1988 to 5 years probation, 2
months in a half-way house, and 250 hours of community service. He was ordered to repay $11,352
of salary for the time covered by his fraudulent research and to conduct no psychological research
during the period of his probation. See Frankel (1988).
24. Abbs v. Sullivan, 756 F. Supp. 1172 (W.D. Wis. 1990).
25. "Nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment. State governmental action is similarly limited by the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
26. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 97 (1972).
27. See pp. 666-67 in Tribe (1988). See also Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341
U.S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring; procedural safeguards give the accused "the right to
be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss").
28. See Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, 601-03 (1972) (plaintiff, an untenured instructor, could
have liberty or property interest in continued employment); see also Ferguson v. Thomas, 430 F.2d
852, 856 (5th Cir. 1970) ("a college can create an obligation as between itself and an instructor where
none might otherwise exist if it adopts regulations or standards of practice governing non-tenured
employees which create an expectation of reemployment") and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S.
564, 578 (1972) (non-tenured instructor had no right to a hearing before the university decided not to
renew his contract, absent custom or mutual agreement that his employment would be renewed).
29. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976) ("reputation alone, apart from some more tangible
interests such as employment, is [n]either `liberty' [n]or `property' by itself

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCEINSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE

127

sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause"). But see Wisconsin v.
Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437-39 (1971), and Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 426-31
(1969).
30. See, for example, Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
31. The elements of due process, any or all of which may be required before an individual can be
deprived of a particular liberty or property interest, include (1) adequate notice of expected conduct;
(2) adequate notice of the charges; (3) a timely hearing; (4) a neutral decision maker; (5) an
opportunity to make an oral presentation to the decision maker; (6) an opportunity to present evidence
or witnesses to the decision maker; (7) a chance to confront and cross-examine witnesses or evidence
to be used against the accused; (8) the right to have an adviser involved to assist in the presentation of
the individual's case to the decision maker; and (9) a decision based on the record with a statement of
reasons for the decision.
Not all of these elements must be present in every hearing. To the contrary, only the more serious
deprivations of liberty or property interests by the state require extensive procedural safeguards.
See generally, pp. 706-18 in Tribe (1988) and pp. 555-56 in Nowak et al. (1983). See also Mishkin
(1988).
32. In this discussion the panel uses the term "hearing" to refer to the mechanism used to investigate
complaints of misconduct in science. The hearing may or may not involve sessions in which the
subject of a misconduct investigation may hear testimony by or cross-examine witnesses.
33. The issue of the involvement of attorneys in the investigation of misconduct in science is a vexing
problem. Some universities believe that attorneys should not participate in the university investigatory
process because their involvement may lead to an adversarial spirit that is not consistent with the
academic environment. Other universities allow those accused of misconduct to be represented by
attorneys in the misconduct investigation. In such cases, the investigative panel may also request the
university to supply its legal counsel for the panel's assistance.
34. 45 C.F.R. Section 689.2(b) (1991).
35. 45 C.F.R. Sections 620.314(c), 689.2(d) (1991).
36. 45 C.F.R. Section 689.2(a) (1991).
37. See, for example, the accounts published in Westin (1981) and in Glazer and Glazer (1990).
38. Swazey and Scher (1981) and Glazer and Glazer (1990). See also Hollis (1987), Jacobstein
(1987), and Sprague (1987).
39. Public Law 101-12 (103 Stat. 16 [1989]).
40. See, for example, testimony by academic officials and scientists in hearings on maintaining the
integrity of scientific research convened by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
(U.S. Congress, 1990b).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

128

6
Steps to Encourage Responsible Research
Practices

ACKNOWLEDGING RESPONSIBILITY AND TAKING

ACTION
The size, complexity, and diversity of research efforts, among other factors,
contribute to excellence in a changing and competitive scientific research
environment. However, these same features can provide opportunities for
misconduct in science, questionable research practices, and other misconduct.
Individual scientists bear the primary responsibility for the conduct of their
research, but local research institutions and sponsoring organizations also have
responsibilities, in addition to implementing fair, sound, and well-defined
mechanisms to investigate allegations of misconduct in science. Research
institutions strive to provide a climate that encourages responsible practices and
discourages questionable research practices. The challenge to research
institutions is to aid faculty in establishing effective systems of values and social
controls, to provide individuals with opportunities and incentives to develop and
implement these systems, and to safeguard the traditions that foster scientific
creativity.
Institutional efforts to encourage responsible research practices have been
stimulated by the following factors:
Growth and diversification of research, creating situations likely to be
sources of increasing disputes about appropriate forms of research

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

129

search behavior. In addition to relying on traditional methods of

individual instruction and professional example, research institutions are
seeking more explicit ways to aid their members' efforts to discriminate
between acceptable and unacceptable research practices.1
Recognition that many types of research practices that do not constitute
misconduct in science are nevertheless questionable and fall well short
of responsible research behavior. Scientists and the public in general are
likely to grow dissatisfied with self-serving research practices that erode
communal values and standards.
Regulations requiring institutions that receive research funds from the
Public Health Service (PHS) to establish an environment that
discourages misconduct in science.2 In addition, applicants for
biomedical training grants funded by the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) and by the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration (ADAMHA) must now demonstrate that they provide
instruction in the ''responsible conduct of research" in their training
programs. 3
Belief that sustained efforts by the research community to strengthen the
accountability and integrity of the research environment may obviate the
need for additional federal intervention.
Some research institutions have sought to develop educational programs or
guidelines intended to foster responsible research practices. The effectiveness,
desirability, and need for such programs and guidelines have been debated and
discussed within the research community. Although many advocate expansion of
the research institution's role in fostering responsible research practices, others
often individual faculty membershave expressed caution based on the
following assumptions:

Institutional efforts designed to foster integrity in the research

environment may be misinterpreted as an admission that the system is
not working well or that faculty are not exercising their responsibilities.
Institution-wide programs designed to encourage responsible research
practices may weaken individual and departmental efforts to achieve the
same goals. Institutional programs may all too easily intrude on and
replace the more personaland possibly more effectiveefforts of
individual scientists who regard the fostering of scientific responsibility
as a professional obligation.
Self-imposed institutional guidelines or educational programs may
encourage government to utilize this mechanism for inappropriate
oversight.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

130

INTEGRATING ETHICS INTO THE EDUCATION OF

SCIENTISTS
The entire scientific community bears a responsibility for ensuring that the
customs, traditions, and ethical standards that guide responsible research
practices are systematically communicated to research scientists and trainees. As
mentors, practicing scientists often impart these values to their students and
associates, who thus can learn through direct guidance and also by example the
customs of responsible research practice. But formal or explicit definition of
standards governing the responsible conduct of research is infrequent.
Benefits of Education in Ethics
Although data reviewed in Chapter 4 indicate that young investigators or
students are perhaps less likely than older researchers to engage in misconduct in
sciencein fact, many cases of misconduct have involved senior researchers
early education can be a primary means of instilling responsible practices.
Studies in the literature on ethics education suggest that ethical development is
not complete or fixed by the time students go to graduate school (Rest, 1988).
Thus, although ethics education alone is unlikely to change individual moral
character, teaching ethics in a professional setting can foster awareness and can
reinforce the importance of actions that constitute appropriate behavior in the
conduct of research.
For example, informal and formal discussions of genuine ethical problems
that arise in the research environmentsuch as the allocation of credit for a
collaborative effort that involves specialized contributionscan teach both
students and faculty about the significance and consequences of alternate
responses to difficult situations. Moreover, the public nature of educational
discussions can create a climate that may discourage individuals from engaging in
questionable practices, as students and colleagues examine the potential harm
that such practices can cause. Regularly held graduate seminars, faculty
colloquia, and informal discussions in the laboratory and the classroom can also
provide opportunities to test perceptions of observed practices against the
expected norms of science, can help all members of the research community to
define and clarify the fundamental norms that guide research practice, can
ameliorate misunderstandings that could escalate into unfounded accusations, and
can stimulate open and frank consideration of conflicting values. Exploring a case
of poor authorship practices in the context of a classroom discussion of
questionable research practices, for example, might be less threatening to a

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

131

concerned student than approaching an institutional officer or departmental

superior.
Finally, education in research ethics can help all involved in the research
process to become informed participants in the self-governance of the scientific
community. The ideal of informed participation is as important for members of
the scientific community as it is for citizens of the larger political community.
Approaches to Teaching Ethics
Various approaches can be adopted in teaching research ethics. One involves
examining the special obligations scientists have by virtue of their expert
knowledge and profession and clarifying how practices and standards may differ
among disciplines or among institutions. Instruction based on this approach could
include discussions of standards of good practice, misconduct in science,
questionable research practices, and other misconduct. Specific topics that should
be addressed include the following:
The necessity of honesty, skepticism, error correction, and verification in
science;
Principles of data selection, management, and storage, including rights
and responsibilities with respect to sharing and granting access to
research data, and the special status of data that support published
findings;
Publication practices, including the importance of timely and appropriate
release of significant research findings and the harm that can result from
premature or fragmentary publication of results or from publication in
multiple forms;
Authorship practices, particularly criteria for and obligations of
authorship and the proper allocation of credit for specialized
contributions; and
Training and mentorship practices, including the responsibilities of
supervision and the principles that guide collaboration between senior
and junior personnel.
Some honorary and professional societies have prepared educational
materials to encourage discussions of such topics. The National Academy of
Sciences, for example, has published On Being a Scientist (NAS, 1989), an essay
written to instruct graduate students in the values and practices of scientists, and
Sigma Xi has made its educational essay on ethics and science, Honor in
Science (Sigma Xi, 1986), widely available. Scientific Freedom and
Responsibility, prepared by Harvard biologist John T. Edsall (1975) for the
American Association

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

132

for the Advancement of Science, was an early report that still would enhance the
quality of current discussions about appropriate behavior in science.
A second approach to teaching ethics focuses on examining laws,
institutional policies, and professional standards that guide certain fields of
activity (such as the use of human subjects in biomedical, social, or behavioral
research or the use of hazardous materials in the natural sciences). Such an
approach can clarify the justification for adopting particular rules and also can
explain the context and some of the abuses and value conflicts that spurred the
development of specific rules and standards. Discussions of institutional policies
should be explicit about appropriate channels for raising concerns when one
witnesses misconduct in science, questionable research practices, or other
misconduct. Such discussions may help prevent conflicts that can result from
poor communication or poorly understood expectations about what behaviors
constitute misconduct in science or questionable research practices.
A third approach involves going beyond laboratory and classroom
discussions of responsibility in research to consider specific ethical questions in
the broader context of competing rights and obligations in the research
community. University-wide forums can provide opportunities to discuss
authorship, communication, and data-handling practices that may both educate
faculty and students and allow comparison of different disciplinary practices.
Research institutions could also provide funds to graduate students, interns, and
other junior scientists to organize discussion sessions and to prepare case studies
to highlight current ethical dilemmas. Such forums and sessions could also
facilitate interdisciplinary discussions of the philosophy, history, and social
studies of science that bear on scientific conduct.
Experience gained in teaching engineering ethics and biomedical ethics
suggests that the following principles can contribute to the success of ethical
discussions as they are integrated into scientific or engineering programs:
More than generalities should be taught. Specific examples, preferably
local case histories, are the preferred way to provide guidance on matters
important in the profession.
Education must aim at influencing behavior. Professional training
cannot assure that people will make correct moral judgments, but it can
provide the opportunity to learn from experts who can explain the
reasoning behind certain moral judgments or professional practices.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

133

Perspectives gained from looking beyond science itself are valuable in

examining ethical issues in the research environment. Studies in ethics,
moral philosophy, history, and the social studies of science can
contribute to a broader outlook that can aid in rethinking controversial
issues and establishing values in research.
If properly structured, topics and teaching materials related to ethics in
science and research can be intellectually stimulating for students and
faculty. Such topics can be taught in dedicated courses or included in
courses within the broad curriculum. The panel's discussions with
students and faculty indicate that both approaches are desired by the
larger community.
As noted above, universities that have applied for NIH or ADAMHA
training grants must develop educational programs to foster broad discussions of
responsible research practices. The NIH has convened several workshops to
examine the strengths and limitations of various approaches to fulfilling the
training grant requirement.4
Some departments and universities have sponsored forums and seminars
that offer students the benefit of learning from watching faculty grapple seriously
with issues involving responsible practice. Real or hypothetical case studies are
also useful devices for examining selected research practices. Relevant instruction
and the message that responsibility in research is to be taken seriously can also be
given in orientation programs for new graduate students, postdoctoral fellows,
and faculty.
Interdisciplinary training workshops may improve the quality of instruction
and curriculum materials for teaching ethics in scientific research. After a period
of years, and when a significant number of schools have developed curricula on
research ethics, it could be useful to review and to improve as necessary the
quality of teaching and of the curriculum materials used for instruction in
research ethics. 5 Such a review could draw on the expertise and judgments of a
consensus panel representing those engaged in ethics instruction as well as those
who are respected scientists in the fields under study.
CONSIDERING GUIDELINES FOR RESPONSIBLE
RESEARCH PRACTICES
Current Means for Providing Guidance
Even though most research institutions do not have written guidelines for the
conduct of research, their faculty usually act individually and

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

134

informally to encourage responsible research practices.6 In addition, most

universities have (1) general codes of academic conduct or honor codes that apply
broadly to faculty, administrators, staff, and students 7 and that provide for
disciplinary action by the institution in the event of serious violations and (2)
written policies dealing with specific issues in the research environment, such as
conflict of interest, intellectual property rights, use of humans and animals in
experimentation, and computer use.8 Most academic institutions that conduct
significant amounts of research have also adopted policies and procedures for
handling allegations of misconduct in science. 9
The normative rules and monitoring requirements scattered throughout
university policies and documents relating to science and engineering research
are an important first step for promoting the responsible conduct of research. In
defining what is illegal, unethical, and irresponsible, these rules suggest what is
legal, ethical, and responsible. For example, the University of Maryland policy on
misconduct defines "improprieties of authorship" as "improper assignment of
credit, such as excluding others; misrepresentation of the same material as
original in more than one publication; inclusion of individuals as authors who
have not made a definite contribution to the work published; or submission of
multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors" (University
of Maryland at Baltimore, 1989, p. 2). This statement could be interpreted as a
guideline for responsible behavior in research, since it encourages the proper
assignment of credit for research performance and urges authors to include the
names of co-authors only with their permission.
Therefore, although most research institutions do not have comprehensive
codes of conduct for science and engineering research, they do provide ethical
and policy guidance to researchers. If these policies are considered along with the
various federal regulations, statements of professional societies about
professional conduct in research, and other literature prepared by professional and
scientific societies (such as the National Academy of Sciences' essay On Being a
Scientist and Sigma Xi's essay Honor in Science), the total package provides a
strong foundation for describing what is responsible and irresponsible in the
conduct of research.
However, the currently existing set of normative rules designed to foster
responsibility in science has limitations. Research policies are often disjointed
and piecemeal, they may be administered by different academic units, and they
may vary substantially among institutions. It is difficult for researchers to
comprehend and consider all the legal and professional responsibilities raised by
modern science and engineering. Yet integrating rules and resolving
contradictions

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

135

are often left to the individual, who is expected to read through three, four, or
more separate policies to determine what is proper.
The use of examples or case studies that deal with difficult rather than
obvious issues is a valuable method of interpreting and explaining policy
statements about normative or ideal conduct. Few doubt that manufacturing data
or forging experimental results is wrong. It may be less clear, however, how
preliminary results should be presented in grant applications, when "enough data"
are needed to give confidence that a project will succeed but "enough work"
remains to be done to justify the grant award.
Most normative rules provide important general principles but leave
significant questions unanswered. This void has prompted some universities to
take additional steps to foster responsible conduct in research, such as developing
guidelines for the conduct of research.
Scope and Purpose of Institutional Guidelines for the Conduct
of Research
By "guidelines for the conduct of research," the panel means institutional
policies that address practices such as those related to data management
(including data collection, storage, retention, and accessibility), publication
(including authorship policies), peer review and refereeing, and training and
mentorship. Some institutions have guidelines that focus on a single topic, such
as authorship, whereas others adopt a more comprehensive approach. The
guidelines may be voluntary or compulsory, and they are administered through a
variety of organizational units.
Several major research institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health
(for its intramural research program), Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins
University Medical School, and the University of Michigan Medical School, have
formulated comprehensive guidelines for the conduct of research.10 Nevertheless,
comprehensive guidelines for research conduct are not common. One study of
133 medical institutions indicated that 17 (13 percent) had such guidelines and
that 25 (19 percent) were considering developing guidelines, while 91 (68
percent) were not (Nobel, 1990).
Guidelines for the conduct of research differ from institutional policies that
are designed to address misconduct in science or conflict of interest or that, in
response to regulatory requirements, govern research involving human subjects,
hazardous materials, or recombinant DNA.11 Research conduct guidelines are
intended to promote responsible conduct of research and, to the extent that
questionable practices and misconduct in science are linked, to reduce the
amount

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

136

of misconduct in science. However, although there are positive advantages

associated with the adoption of such guidelines, this approach, by itself, may not
be effective in fostering responsible research conduct. The imposition of
guidelines also carries certain risks and limitations in the collegial academic
environment.
Benefits of Institutional Guidelines for the Conduct of
Research
Research conduct guidelines represent an important, but not necessarily the
best, means by which research institutions can demonstrate awareness of and
support for principles of good research practice. Properly constructed and used,
research guidelines can help articulate and strengthen the fundamental values of
scientists, especially in an increasingly diverse and changing research
environment.12
In principle, research conduct guidelines can help scientists to understand
the criteria that should be considered in, for example, making decisions about how
long research data should be retained. They can also help clarify for scientists and
trainees what constitutes "good practice," although many research practices are,
by virtue of their complexity, subject to varying interpretations.
Government agencies already require research institutions to play a stronger
role in fostering responsible research practices, and it is possible that such
guidelines may one day be required as a condition of governmental funding. Thus
it may be wiser to have research conduct guidelines developed internally by
faculty and research scientists who are most familiar with their own institutional
research environment than to have them imposed by higher authorities to fulfill
funding or regulatory requirements.
Guidelines may help inform members of a research institution about what
constitutes questionable practices or misconduct in science in an academic
research environment. For example, by issuing guidelines that state the criteria
for authorship, universities can fulfill a due process obligation to provide notice to
their members of the unacceptable authorship practices, such as plagiarism, that
may constitute grounds for disciplinary actions.
Disadvantages of Institutional Guidelines for the Conduct of
Research
Many scientists believe that research conduct guidelines are unnecessary and
ineffective, and they point out that research practices are often too complex and
too varied to be governed by a few general

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

137

principles. Moreover, adopting such principles is a time-consuming process that

requires the efforts of active researchers who are already burdened by other
obligations. Some are concerned that focusing on guidelines diverts attention from
the consideration of complex ethical issues and genuine dilemmas in the research
environment.
The concept of research guidelines cuts against faculty autonomy and other
values associated with academic freedom as ideals of the academic environment.
In the past, steps that might restrict scholarly or scientific independence were
taken only when there was clear evidence that inappropriate behaviors or
hazardous situations might persist in the absence of institutional policies.
Although they themselves may not require new administrative procedures,
guidelines may encourage implementation of rules and rigid regulations, as well
as "cookbook" approaches to scientific endeavors. Some institutional officers are
also concerned that guidelines that describe appropriate research conduct will
expose them to additional litigation and administrative vexations (Nobel, 1990).
Many scientists believe that explicit guidelines can add little of substance to
the material already included in publications such as On Being A Scientist and
Honor in Science. Others think that guidelines may not be necessary because the
norms of science are self-evident and because existing policies provide abundant
advice to determine how to conduct research responsibly. Another drawback is
the effort needed to bring to the attention of faculty and students any research
conduct guidelines that have been adopted. If research conduct policies are not
appropriately implemented, they can be viewed as empty gestures or "window
dressing" that will serve little purpose.
Conclusions About Institutional Guidelines for the Conduct of
Research
In considering the advantages and disadvantages of guidelines for research
conduct, the panel concluded the following:
1.

Guidelines that are relevant and appropriate to research may be

widely disparate depending on the research field, the nature of the
work, and other factors.
2 Written guidelines are unlikely to influence academic research
behavior if they are imposed from above or from outside. The
process of formulating guidelines may be extremely valuable for
those who participate; however, efforts will need to be made to
ensure that the final statements express the fundamental ideas and
potential conflicts inherent in such guidelines.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

138

3. To be effective, guidelines must be incorporated into the process of

research and education and become an operational part of day-to-day
activities. If faculty desire to develop guidelines for the conduct of
research, such policies should be formulated by those who will be
directly affected and should be adapted to specific research fields and
protocols.
Institutional guidelines are likely to be less effective than ones formulated at
the group or laboratory level. However, research institutions may wish to adopt
an overarching set of general principles for their members to provide a common
frame of reference. The panel recognizes that the formulation of written
guidelines is an exacting task that requires substantial time and effort. Guidelines
may help clarify the professional obligations of faculty and research staff, but the
panel believes that the development of such guidelines should be left to the
discretion and initiative of individual faculty and research institutions. In any
case, care should be taken to avoid adopting constraints that could be damaging to
the research process.
A FRAMEWORK OF SUBJECTS TO CONSIDER IN
ENCOURAGING RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES
The panel has identified a set of subjects that should be considered in any
efforts aimed at developing educational discussions or guidelines for the conduct
of scientific research. This set of subjects is not meant to be comprehensive but
rather to suggest particular topics and examples of "best scientific practice" that
should be considered in formulating statements on research conduct. Examples of
selected guidelines are paraphrased below to illustrate ways in which different
institutions have addressed these topics.13
1.

Data management. Acquisition and maintenance of research data

should be addressed since they provide the foundation for scientific
discovery and experimentation. Research data include detailed
experimental protocols, primary data from laboratory instruments,
and the procedures applied to reduce and analyze primary data.

a Subjects to be addressed:
Availability of data to scientific collaborators or supervisors
Retention of data for specified periods of time
Accessibility of data after publication
b. Examples of good practice:
(1) Research data, including the primary experimental results, should be
retained for a sufficient period to allow analysis and repetition by
others of published material from those data. In

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

139

some fields, 5 or 7 years are specified as the minimum period of

retention, but this may vary under different circumstances. (NIH,
1990)
(2) Custody of all original primary laboratory data must be retained by
the unit in which they are generated. An investigator may make
copies of the primary data for his/her own use. (Harvard University
Faculty of Medicine, 1988)
(3) All primary data are to be entered into a notebook provided by the
institute for this purpose. The investigator is responsible for all data
entries. The notebook will contain lined, numbered pages; no pages
are to be removed or made illegible. Entries must be dated and
signed. (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 1987)
(4) All data, even from observations and experiments not leading directly
to publication, should be treated comparably. Research data should
always be immediately available to scientific collaborators and
supervisors for review. In collaborative projects involving different
units, all investigators should know the status of all contributing data
and have direct access to them. (NIH, 1990)
2. Publication practices. Science is a cumulative activity in which each
scientist builds on the work of others. Publication of results is an
integral and essential component of research because it enables
others to gain access to each scientist's contribution.
a. Subjects to be addressed:

Methods of publication and disclosure of new findings

Correction of errors and retraction of published findings
Treatment of fragmentary results of a scientific investigation
Multiple publications of same or similar findings
Completeness of publication so that repetition and evaluation are
feasible

b. Examples of points to be kept in mind:

(1) Certain practices make it difficult for reviewer and reader to follow a
complete experimental sequence. Among these are the premature
publication of data without adequate tests of reproducibility or
assessments of significance, the publication of fragments of a study,
and the submission of multiple similar abstracts or manuscripts
differing only slightly in content. In such circumstances, if any of the
work is questioned, it is difficult to determine whether the research
was done accurately, the methods were described properly, the
statistical analyses were adequate, or appropriate conclusions were
drawn. Instigators

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

140

should review each proposed manuscript with these principles in

mind. (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1990)
(2) In a publication, all data pertinent to the project should be reported,
whether supportive or unsupportive of the thesis or conclusions.
Except for review articles, publishing the same material in more than
one paper should be avoided. Unnecessary fragmentation of a
complete body of work into separate publications should be avoided.
Prior work in the filed should be referenced appropriately.
(University of Michigan Medical School, 1989)
3.

Authorship. Authorship and allocation of credit are primary

benchmarks of achievement and rewards for scientists.

a. Subjects to be addressed:
Criteria for authorship and identification of contributors
Order of listing of authors
Responsibility for authorship: collective and individual
b. Examples of good practice:
(1) For each individual the privilege of authorship should be based on a
significant contribution to the conceptualization, design, execution,
and/or interpretation of the research study, as well as a willingness to
take responsibility for the defense of the study should the need arise.
In contrast, other individuals who participate in part of a study may
more appropriately be acknowledged as having contributed certain
advice, reagents, analyses, patient material, support, and so on, but
not be listed as authors. It is expected that such distinctions will be
increasingly important in the future and should be explicitly
considered more frequently now. (NIH, 1990)
(2) Criteria for authorship of a manuscript should be determined and
announced by each department or research unit. The [Harvard
University Faculty] committee considers the only reasonable
criterion to be that the co-author has made a significant intellectual
or practical contribution. The concept of ''honorary authorship" is
deplorable. The first author should assure the head of each research
unit or department chairperson that s/he has reviewed all the primary
data on which the report is based and provide a brief description of
the role of each co-author. (Harvard University Faculty of Medicine,
1988)
4. Peer review. Peer review is used to guide decisions on the funding of
research and on the publication of research results. It is an essential
component of the scientific research process.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

141

a. Subjects to be addressed:
Responsibility to participate in the peer review process
Considerations of confidentiality and proprietary interests in peer
review
Conflicts of interest and need for disclosure in peer review of
competitive proposals
Objectivity of peer reviews; inclusion of nonpublic information
b. Examples of good practice:
(1)

It is important that reviewers and readers be informed of the

sponsorship of research projects in order that they may be alert to
possible bias in the research arising from a sponsor's financial
interest in the results. (Johns Hopkins University School of
Medicine, 1990)
(2) The reviewer has the responsibility for preserving the integrity of the
review process. In receiving a manuscript or a grant proposal, he is
entrusted with privileged information that is unavailable to anyone
outside of the laboratory of the submitting scientist(s). It is of
obvious importance for the reviewer not to make use of information
gained in the review for his own purposes until it is published or,
prior to that, only by consent of the author. The contents of a work
under review should not be distributed to other colleagues. There are
certain exceptions to this general rule, however. For example, it
should be permissible to discuss parts or even all of a submitted work
with trusted colleagues to obtain a second opinion in instances when
the reviewer is unfamiliar with the methodology or considers the
author to be mistaken. (University of Michigan Medical School,
1989)
5.

Training and supervision. Scientists in universities accept the

obligation to pass along knowledge and skills to the next generation
of scientists.

a. Subjects to be addressed:
Assignment of mentors to students
Availability of mentors and appropriate forms of supervision
Degree of independence and responsibility for students and
postdoctoral trainees
Types of duties assignable to students by mentors and
supervisors
Appraisals and communication of student and trainee
performance
b. Examples of good practice:
(1) Each trainee should have a designated primary scientific

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

142

mentor. The mentor has the responsibility to supervise the

trainee's progress closely and to interact personally with the trainee
on a regular basis in such a way as to make the training experience a
meaningful one. Mentors should limit the number of trainees in
their laboratory to the number for whom they can provide an
appropriate research experience. (NIH, 1990)
(2) The preceptor should provide each new investigator (whether
student, postdoctoral fellow, or junior faculty) with applicable
government and institutional requirements for conduct of studies
involving healthy volunteers or patients, animals, radioactive or
other hazardous substances, and recombinant DNA. (Harvard
University Medical School Faculty, 1988)
(3) The preceptor should supervise the design of experiments and the
processes of acquiring, recording, examining, interpreting, and
storing data. A preceptor who limits his/her role to the editing of
manuscripts does not provide adequate supervision. (Harvard
University Medical School Faculty, 1988)
DISCOURAGING QUESTIONABLE RESEARCH PRACTICES
Many scientists and students do not believe that they will experience
situations involving fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Yet, sometimes on a
daily basis, they face situations that require ethical judgment and professional
guidance. Students and young scientific investigators, in particular, may
experience questionable practices, sometimes encouraged by their mentors, that
cause them to question the fundamental values that should guide the responsible
conduct of research. Requests for co-authorship in exchange for the preparation
of unique samples or reagents for complicated experiments, for example, can be
problematic for inexperienced as well as senior investigators. Rules and
regulations often do not provide appropriate guidance for resolving such
problems, which nevertheless cannot simply be tolerated or ignored. It is
important to recognize that junior investigators may be particularly at risk in
failing to distinguish, or prevent, unacceptable research practices.
Although questionable research practices are not appropriate for
treatment as incidents of misconduct in science, they require the sustained
attention of scientists and responses by institutional officers when there is
general agreement that specific practices are not to be tolerated. The panel
points out that the methods for addressing questionable research practices
should be different from those for handling misconduct in science or other
misconduct. Attention to questionable research practices should be
rationalized

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

143

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 resasonable
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.
NOTES
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

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
STEPS TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PRACTICES

144

subpart may result in enforcement action against the institutions, including loss of funding, and
may lead to the OSI's conducting its own investigation.
3. The policy, issued jointly by NIH and ADAMHA, became effective July 1, 1990. See National
Institutes of Health and Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (1989, 1990).
4. The deadline for the first applications affected by this rule was January 10, 1991. Thus at the time
this report is being written, these applications are being reviewed. It will therefore be some months
before the initial impact of the new requirement can be reviewed. For the NIH's initial thoughts on
compliance, see Department of Health and Human Services (1990b).
5. See, for example, the experience in biomedical ethics reported in Culver et al. (1985).
6. Much of this section draws on a paper prepared for the panel by Nicholas Steneck, "Fostering
Responsible Conduct in Science and Engineering Research: Current University Policies and Actions,"
which is included in Volume II of this report.
7. Other institutions have not adopted policies on integrity or responsibility, but they have adopted
rules of academic discipline. See especially the compendium of student honor codes in Codes and
Regulations, published as part of the Princeton Conference on Honor Systems, March 1988.
8. For more information on university policies and the research environment, see, in Volume II of this
report, Barbara Mishkin's "Factors Enhancing Acceptance of Federal Regulation of Research" and
Nicholas Steneck's "Fostering Responsible Conduct in Science and Engineering Research: Current
University Policies and Actions." For examples, see policy statements from Harvard University
School of Medicine, the University of Michigan, the Johns Hopkins University, and the University of
California, San Diego, also in Volume II of this report.
9. See Department of Health and Human Services (1989d). Also see National Science Foundation
(1990b) and prior semiannual reports (NSF, 1989c, 1990a).
10. See Harvard University Faculty of Medicine (1988), University of Michigan Medical School
(1989), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (1990), and National Institutes of Health
(1990).
11. Many researchers and academic administrators report a positive experience with other
institutional policies that define appropriate research behavior. This is particularly true with the
regulations for research involving human subjects and regulations on laboratory safety.
12. It is useful to review the findings presented in Institute of Medicine (1989a). The IOM report
states:
Increasing budgetary and competitive pressures in science demand that local research
institutions and government research funders develop standards to ensure responsible research
practices to ensure the integrity of the academic research enterprise . [emphasis in original]
[The IOM committee expressed] consensus that, although the fundamental values and standards
of the research community are appropriate, the expression and implementation of these standards
are insufficient to promote responsible research practices in an increasingly large, heterogeneous,
and competitive research environment. New and comprehensive guidelines should be developed
by the research community to clarify traditional practices, to strengthen the mix of formal
policies and informal practices currently in place, and to correct actions that seriously deviate
from these standards.
13. The full texts of these institutional guidelines and additional examples are included in Volume II
of this report.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

145

7
Recommendations

Ensuring the integrity of the research process requires that scientists and
research institutions give systematic attention to the fundamental values,
principles, and traditions that foster responsible research conduct. In considering
factors that may affect integrity and misconduct in science, the panel formulated
the following twelve recommendations to strengthen the research enterprise and
to clarify the nature of the responsibilities of scientists, research institutions, and
government agencies in this area.
ACTING TO DEFINE AND STRENGTHEN BASIC PRINCIPLES
AND PRACTICES
Recommendation One
Individual scientists and officials of research institutions should accept
formal responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the research process. They
should foster an environment, a reward system, and a training process that
encourage responsible research practices.
Discussion: Scientists and research institutions need to accept formal
responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the research process. Although faculty
and research staff have the primary responsibility for maintaining integrity,
institutional officals should retain

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

146

and accept certain explicit obligations. Institutions should strive to attain research
enterprise that emphasizes and rewards excellence in science, quality rather than
quantity, openness rather than secrecy, and collegial obligations rather than
opportunistic behavior in appointment, promotion, tenure, and other career
decisions.
However, aggressive efforts to assure responsible research practices, if
carried to an extreme, can damage the research enterprise. Balance is required.
Inflexible rules or requirements can increase the time and effort necessary to
conduct research, can decrease innovation, can discourage creative individuals
from pursuing research careers, and can in some instances make the research
process impossible.
In particular, mentors and research directors should (1) educate themselves,
their students, and associates about responsible research practices; (2) examine
difficult or problematic issues that provide opportunities to clarify principles,
rights, interests, and obligations that may come into conflict; and (3) inform their
students and associates about available institutional channels for expressing
concerns regarding misconduct in science, questionable research practices, and
other misconduct.
Efforts to improve the research training experience need encouragement.
The research community should recognize the damage that can be done by poor
mentorship practices, whether abusive or neglectful. Inappropriate practices
should be identified and corrected quickly, but with regard for the privacy of the
involved parties. Institutional leaders should take steps to establish a climate
within the research setting that encourages research collaboration and educational
training and fosters constructive ties between mentors and trainees. This climate
should encourage the identification of poor mentorship practices at an early stage
and establish fall-back arrangements in case some unanticipated eventsuch as
the death of a mentor, or an instance of misconduct in science or other
misconductdisturbs the relationship. Fall-back provisions should provide
necessary support, both emotional and material, to the trainee from the resources
of the department or institution.
Recommendation Two
Scientists and research institutions should integrate into their curricula
educational programs that foster faculty and student awareness of concerns
related to the integrity of the research process.
Discussion: Educational programs on research ethics should reflect the
diverse perspectives of the scientific community but should

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

147

focus on identifying fundamental principles that guide responsible research

practices. Educators and scientists should suggest how these principles can help
resolve ethical dilemmas associated with specific research practices, provide
information about relevant laws and regulations that govern misconduct in
science and other misconduct in the research environment, and discuss the
historical development of good scientific practice.
Recommendation Three
Adoption of formal guidelines for the conduct of research, which can
provide a valuable opportunity for faculty and research institutions to clarify
the nature of responsible research practices, should be an option, not a
requirement, for research institutions.
Discussion: In principle, guidelines for the conduct of research should be
framed to fit local situations, including specific research fields and protocols, and
should be formulated by the scientists who conduct research, since they know the
specific matters relevant to their work. Guidelines should be actively discussed by
all who are affected by them and modified as experience dictates.
DEALING WITH MISCONDUCTINSTITUTIONAL ROLES
Recommendation Four
Research institutions and government agencies should adopt a common
framework of definitions for distinguishing among misconduct in science,
questionable research practices, and other forms of misconduct. They should
adopt a single consistent definition of misconduct in science that is based on
fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Accordingly, the panel
recommends that federal agencies review their definitions of misconduct in
science to remove ambiguous categories such as "other serious deviations
from accepted research practices."
Recommendation Five
Government agencies should adopt common policies and procedures for
handling allegations of misconduct in science. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) should lead the effort to establish governmentwide definitions and procedures. OSTP

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

148

should consider adopting the definition of misconduct in science proposed in

Chapter 1 of this report and use this definition in formulating governmentwide model policies.
Discussion: The variation among existing regulatory definitions of
misconduct in science is a serious obstacle to developing effective local
institutional polices for handing allegations of misconduct in science. The
ambiguity of the scope of regulatory definitions provides opportunity for serious
misunderstandings between individual scientists and research institutions and
between institutions and government agencies.
A federal interagency committee has been established by OSTP to establish
model policies and procedures for government agencies to use in handling
allegations of misconduct in science. That committee plans to recommend a basic
definition of misconduct in science and basic procedures for developing uniform
approaches to addressing misconduct-in-science cases. However, it is not certain
that this recommendation will eliminate significant differences among
governmental agency definitions of misconduct in science, especially differences
between those adopted by the National Science Foundation and the Public Health
Service.
The model policies and procedures under consideration by OSTP provide a
significant opportunity to reduce inconsistencies, uncertainties, and conflicts in
current governmental procedures.
Recommendation Six
Research institutions and government research agencies should have
policies and procedures that ensure appropriate and prompt responses to
allegations of misconduct in science. Research institutions should foster
effective and appropriate methods for detecting and handling incidents of
misconduct in science and should strengthen the implementation of
misconduct-in-science policies and procedures that incorporate fundamental
elements of due process.
Discussion: Research institutions that receive funding from the Public
Health Service are already legally required to have policies and procedures to
handle alleged and confirmed misconduct in science. Such policies and
procedures should be extended to all public and private research conducted within
these institutions and should incorporate the following essential requirements:
1. Clear communication to members of the research community about
effective institutional channels for reporting misconduct in science
without fear of retribution.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

149

Resources and means for handling accusations and investigations

with dispatch. Response times should be short within the limits of
other responsibilities.
3. Fair and impartial treatment for all who are involved in cases. Both
accused and accuser are entitled to anonymity during the early
phases of misconduct-in-science investigations.
4. Protection of the legal rights of those involved in cases throughout
the proceedings. Additional protections may be necessary for faculty
members who participate as witnesses or members of investigative
panels.
5. Provision for encouraging, through a variety of educational
activities, open discussions of misconduct in science, questionable
research practices, and other misconduct, so that all members of the
research community know clearly what is expected of them.
Recommendation Seven
Scientists and their institutions should act to discourage questionable
research practices through a broad range of formal and informal methods in
the research environment. They should also accept responsibility for
determining which questionable research practices are serious enough to
warrant institutional penalties. But the methods used by individual scientists
and research institutions to address questionable research practices should
be distinct from those for handling misconduct in science or other
misconduct.
Recommendation Eight
Research institutions should have policies and procedures to address
other misconductsuch as theft, harassment, or vandalismthat may occur
in the research environment. Where procedures for handling complaints
about other misconduct do not exist, allegations should be examined
according to the same administrative mechanisms as those designed to
address misconduct in science, although the procedural pathways for
responding to other misconduct and misconduct in science may differ.
Recommendation Nine
Government research agencies should clarify their roles in addressing
misconduct in science, other misconduct, and questionable research
practices. Although government agencies have specific regulatory
responsibilities in handling the categories of misconduct

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

150

in science and other misconduct, their role in addressing questionable

research practices should be designed to support the efforts of scientists and
research institutions to discourage such practices through the processes of
education and peer review.
Discussion: The role of government in fostering research integrity should be
restricted to one that supports and facilitates the efforts of scientists and their
institutions. Efforts to standardize research practices across the disciplines or
across institutions should be avoided, since they may weaken many of the
strengths and positive features associated with the diversity that fosters
intellectual freedom in the research environment.
TAKING ADDITIONAL STEPS
Recommendation Ten
An independent Scientific Integrity Advisory Board should be created
by the scientific community and research institutions to exercise leadership
in addressing ethical issues in research conduct; in framing model policies
and procedures to address misconduct in science and other misconduct; to
collect and analyze data on episodes of misconduct in the research
environment; to provide periodic assessments of the adequacy of public and
private systems that have been developed to handle misconduct-in-science
cases; and to facilitate the exchange of information about and experience
with policies and procedures governing the handling of allegations of
misconduct in science.
Discussion and Details
The new private, not-for-profit organization recommended by the panel
would not address specific cases of alleged misconduct in science, nor would it
accredit procedures adopted by particular institutions. The purpose of the
organizationcalled the Scientific Integrity Advisory Board (SIAB)would be
to provide an information resource and advice for performers and sponsors of
research. SIAB would also increase public awareness of how the scientific
research enterprise works and highlight areas of consensus and disagreement.
Specific Tasks
The Scientific Integrity Advisory Board would provide resources to
accomplish the following:

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

151

1. Address and frame ethical issues arising in the conduct of research.

Through consultations with research scientists and other concerned
individuals and institutions, SIAB could identify issues associated
with data handling, authorship, and training and mentorship, as well
as conflicts between research faculty and institutional officials.
2. Formulate model policies and procedures for handling allegations of
misconduct in science consistent with the standards of due process
and confidentiality that should govern the handling of complaints. In
fulfilling its charge, SIAB would comment on selected features of
misconduct-in-science policies and procedures adopted by research
institutions and, upon request, provide a confidential evaluation of
proposed policies to the subject institution. SIAB could also monitor
the activities of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the
Public Health Service, the National Science Foundation, and other
agencies to review and comment publicy on agency policies and
procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in science.
3. Provide advisory opinions and guidance to institutional officials
regarding points of difficulty or uncertainty that might arise in
implementing policies and procedures for handling misconduct in
science. Examples of checkpoints to be addressed include the
manner in which an individual accused of misconduct should be
notified about the nature of the allegation; the status and protection
of witnesses and supporting evidence; formulation of the charge to
panels examining allegations of misconduct; criteria to be considered
in appointing members of an investigating panel; notification of
research sponsors, potential employers, and other individuals who
might be affected by the outcome of an investigation of alleged
misconduct; and the legal status of documents and individuals
associated with misconduct inquiries and investigations.
4. Develop a set of case studies illustrating problem areas and
inadequate safeguards in handling complaints involving misconduct
in science or other misconduct in the research environment.
5. Provide guidance to institutions about appropriate actions to be taken
in responding to allegations of misconduct in science or other
misconduct.
6. Act as a clearinghouse for literature and records involving incidents
of misconduct in science. This information could be derived from
media accounts, court proceedings, government documents that are
subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and
investigative reports that would be provided voluntarily by research
institutions. SIAB could prepare a series of white papers or reports to
summarize this information.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

152

Organization and Structure

The panel believes that SIAB should be an independent board composed of
practicing scientists, research administrators, individuals who have reported and
handled incidents of misconduct, former government officials, and public figures
who are not involved in the scientific enterprise. The board of SIAB should
include individuals who are knowledgeable about one or more of the various
scientific disciplines and should also be constructed to assure that the experiences
of diverse institutions are taken into account in SIAB activities.
The governance structure should assure objectivity and independence, the
critical ingredients for SIAB's success. Although it is important that SIAB
maintain its credibility as an independent organization, it may be necessary to
establish SIAB within an existing entity to provide institutional stability and to
facilitate its interaction with a broad network of public and private officials. A
suitable host organization should be considered to enable SIAB to develop the
details of a charter, operating plan, and budget and to receive start-up funding.
SIAB might or might not become part of the host organization once it began
operation.
The Scientific Integrity Advisory Board could operate in the same manner as
the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, founded in
1988 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York as a nongovernmental
organization to assess the process by which the government incorporates
scientific and technical knowledge into policy and decision making. 1 The
commission includes former government officials, eminent scientists, and private
sector leaders as well as an advisory council. It organizes studies, issues interim
reports, makes final recommendations, and evaluates the impact of its work.
A possible host for SIAB is the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA), which has a congressional charter. The elected membership of NAPA
includes many distinguished scientists and former public officials with
significant public service experience. Other organizations that have experience in
handling medical or other professional malpractice cases may also be potential
host organizations.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) can play an important role in
facilitating the creation of SIAB, although it should not be viewed as a potential
host. The NAS can provide a neutral forum to review and evaluate the ultimate
purposes of and potential sponsors for SIAB. But the NAS does not have the
resources or experience that would be necessary to provide the types of
operational and advisory services that should be an integral part of SIAB's
structure.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

153

The host organization should be one that can ensure SIAB's standing and
expertise while at the same time providing necessary independence from the
research community that it would serve. This last criterion should specifically
exclude as possible hosts professional societies that represent colleges and
universities or the academic research community. SIAB's information services
would be available to participating research universities and colleges, as well as
to non-profit hospitals and research laboratories. Private industry and
government laboratories could be part of its audience as well, to the extent that
their interests converged with those of academic research institutions. Initial
funding might be provided by private foundations and interested federal
agencies; operational funds should eventually come from diverse sources,
including research institutions that subscribe to SIAB's information services or
participate in SIAB-sponsored events.
The panel suggests that SIAB begin operation with an executive director,
one full-time professional staff member, and one full-time support staff member.
Additional staff members might be needed in the course of SIAB's providing
active services and programs to research institutions and the public.
Termination
The panel believes that SIAB has the potential to improve significantly both
the performance of the scientific community in handling instances of misconduct
and also the environment for sustaining integrity in research. The panel strongly
wishes to avoid creating another layer of bureaucracy and, accordingly, suggests
that SIAB be authorized for an initial 5-year period only. It should automatically
cease to exist unless an independent evaluation informs the directors of SIAB
that continuation of its efforts is desired.
Concluding Comments
The proposal to establish SIAB deserves the support of research institutions,
sponsoring federal agencies, and Congress. The research institutions should
welcome the assistance of SIAB in establishing ''best practice" policies and
procedures. SIAB would not replace or interfere with the principal responsibility
of research institutions to deal with specific cases of alleged scientific
misconduct.
Agencies that sponsor research should welcome SIAB as a new and
independent mechanism to ensure the continued integrity of the U.S. scientific
research enterprise. These agencies should recognize

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

154

the need to inform scientists whose research they sponsor as fully as possible of
their procedures, the results of their investigations, and the nature of sanctions
that are imposed.
Congress should view SIAB as a concrete step taken by the scientific
community to establish a new and objective means to respond to concerns about
the integrity of federally sponsored research. SIAB offers a mechanism that
would foster informed judgments about how well both research performers and
sponsors are progressing in ensuring the integrity of the research process.
Finally, the activities of SIAB could ensure that appropriate policies and
procedures were being followed and thus could contribute to public confidence in
the integrity of science and in the principles of self-governance according to
which the scientific research enterprise operates.
Recommendation Eleven
The important role that individual scientists can play in disclosing
incidents of misconduct in science should be acknowledged. Individuals who,
in good conscience, report suspected misconduct in science deserve support
and protection. Their efforts, as well as the efforts of those who participate in
misconduct proceedings, can be invaluable in preserving the integrity of the
research process. When necessary, serious and considered whistle-blowing is
an act of courage that should be supported by the entire research
community.
Discussion: All scientists have a responsibility to report suspected
misconduct in science to appropriate authorities as part of their professional
obligations. Just as it is essential to have procedural protections for individuals
accused of misconduct in science, so also is it essential to protect individuals who
report misconduct as well as those who participate in fact finding and
adjudication to resolve allegations of misconduct. When a prolonged
investigation is expected, research managers may suggest a temporary
reassignment of both the subject of the investigation and the complainant during
the time of the inquiry and investigation to mitigate possible tensions. Research
institutions and, in some cases, scientific societies may also offer to provide
professional recommendations for persons who have been instrumental in
disclosing misconduct if the proceedings prove time consuming. But these
supportive efforts should not be a replacement for the professional and personal
support that is necessary from individual members of the scientific community. In
particular,

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
RECOMMENDATIONS

155

when serious breaches of professional standards and practices have occurred, it is

important that senior scientists speak out publicly to validate and explain the
legitimacy of the complaints.
Recommendation Twelve
Scientific societies and scientific journals should continue to provide and
expand resources and forums to foster responsible research practices and to
address misconduct in science and questionable research practices.
NOTE
1. For a discussion of the commission's origins, see Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology,
and Government (1991).

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

156

8
Selected Bibliography

The following bibliography is a condensed version of more than 1,400

reference items in the panel's project files. This version omits references to news
articles, book reviews, draft papers, and early government reports that have been
replaced by revised policies.
Abelson, J., R. C. Atkinson, R. L. Davidson, R. Dulbecco, M. E. Friedkin, G. E. Palade, J. E.
Seegmiller, M. I. Simon, and D. Steinberg. 1990. "PNAS paper: rules and standard
practice." Science 249(September 21):1358.
Abelson, P. 1990. "Mechanisms for evaluating scientific information and the role of peer review."
Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41(3):216-22.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS). 1990. Procedures for Reporting and Dealing with Possible
Misconduct in Science. Draft report. ARS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md.
Allison, P. D. and J. S. Long. 1987. "Interuniversity mobility of academic scientists." American
Sociological Review 52(October):643-52.
Altman, L. and L. Melcher. 1983. "Fraud in science." British Medical Journal 286(June 25):2003-06.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1990. AAAS Resolution on Federal
Legislation Providing Immunity for Investigations and Reporting of Scientific Fraud and
Misconduct, approved by the Board of Directors, April 27. AAAS, Washington, D.C.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1991a. AAAS Report XVI: Research
and Development FY1992. AAAS, Washington, D.C.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1991b. "Misconduct in science:
Recurring issues, fresh perspectives." Executive summary of conference, November 15-16,
Washington, D.C.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

American Association for the Advancement of Science-American Bar Association (AAAS-ABA)

National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists. 1989. Project on Scientific Fraud and
Misconduct. Reports on workshops one (September 18-20, 1987), two (September 23-25,
1988), and three (February 17-18, 1989). Three volumes. AAAS, Washington, D.C.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 1989. "Statement on plagiarism." Academe
(September/October):47-48.
American Bar Association (ABA). n.d. A Survey on the Teaching of Professional Responsibility.
Center for Professional Responsibility, ABA, Chicago, Ill.
American Chemical Society (ACS). 1986. "Ethical guidelines to publication of Chemical research."
Pp. 217-22 in The ACS Style Guide, Dodd, J. S. (ed.). ACS, Washington, D.C.
American Chemical Society (ACS). 1989. ACS Academic Professional Guidelines. ACS,
Washington, D.C.
American Federation for Clinical Research (AFCR). 1989. "AFCR guidelines for the responsible
conduct of research." Clinical Research 37(September):510-11.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 1988. Society Policy: Ethics. P-15.7. ASME,
New York.
American Sociological Association (ASA). 1989. Code of Ethics. ASA, Washington, D.C.
American Statistical Association (ASA), Ad Hoc Committee on Professional Ethics. 1983. "Ethical
Guidelines for Statistical Practice." The American Statistician 37(February):5-6. [With
comments.]
American Statistical Association (ASA). 1989. Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice, Committee
on Professional Ethics. ASA, Washington, D.C.
Amundson, N. R. 1987. "American university graduate work." Chemical Engineering Education 21
(4):160-63.
Andersen, Robert. 1988. "The federal government's role in regulating misconduct in scientific and
technological research." Journal of Law and Technology 3:121-148.
Angell, M. 1983. "Editors and fraud." CBE Views 6(2):3-8.
Angell, M. 1986. "Publish or perish: a proposal." Annals of Internal Medicine 104(2):261-62.
Angell, M. and A. S. Relman. 1988. "Fraud in biomedical research: a time for congressional
restraint." New England Journal of Medicine 318(June 2):1462-63.
Annals of Internal Medicine. 1982. "Authorship from the reader's side." Annals of Internal Medicine
97(October):613-14.
Appelbaum, P. S., L. H. Roth, C. W. Lidz, P. Benson, and W. Winslade. 1987. "False hopes and best
data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception." Hastings Center Report
(April):20-24.
Arkin, H. R. 1985a. "Academic dismissals: due process, part 1." Journal of the American Medical
Association 254(November 1):2463-66.
Arkin, H. R. 1985b. "Academic dismissals: due process, part 2." Journal of the American Medical
Association 254(November 8):2653-56.
Association of Academic Health Centers (AAHC). 1990. Conflicts of Interest in Academic Health
Centers, AAHC Task Force on Science Policy. Policy paper 1. AAHC, Washington, D.C.
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). 1982. The Maintenance of High Ethical
Standards in Conduct of Research, Ad Hoc Committee on the Maintenance of High Ethical
Standards in the Conduct of Research. AAMC, Washington, D.C.
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). 1990. Guidelines for Dealing with Faculty
Conflicts of Commitment and Conflicts of Interest in Research. AAMC, Washington, D.C.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

158

Association of American Universities (AAU). 1983. Report of the Association of American

Universities Committee on the Integrity of Research, Association of American Universities,
American Council on Education, and National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges. AAU, Washington, D.C.
Association of American Universities (AAU). 1988. Indirect Costs Associated with Federal Support
of Research on University Campuses: Some Suggestions for Change, AAU Ad Hoc
Committee on Indirect Costs. AAU, Washington, D.C.
Babbage, C. 1989. "The decline of science in England." Nature 340(August 17):499-502.
Bailar, J. C., III. 1985. "When research results are in conflict." New England Journal of Medicine
313(October 24):1080-81.
Bailar, J. C., III. 1986. "Science, statistics, and deception." Annals of Internal Medicine 104
(February):259-60.
Bailar, J. C., III and K. Patterson. 1985. "Journal peer review: the need for a research agenda." New
England Journal of Medicine 312(March 7):654-57.
Bailar, J. C., III, M. Angell, S. Boots, E. S. Myers, N. Palmer, M. Shipley, and P. Woolf (eds.). 1990.
Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication. Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda, Md.
Baird, L. L. "The melancholy of anatomy: the personal and professional development of graduate and
professional school students." Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research.
Agathon Press, New York, in press.
Baltimore, D. 1989. "Baltimore's travels." Issues in Science and Technology 5(Summer):48-54.
Barber, A. A. 1989. "Misconduct in science: an administrator's view." Council of Graduate Schools
meeting, Banff, Alberta, March 5.
Barber, B. 1978. "Control and responsibility in the powerful professions." Political Science Quarterly
93(4):599-615.
Barber, B. and W. Hirsch (eds.). 1962. The Sociology of Science. The Free Press of Glencoe, New
York.
Barzun, J. 1978. "The professions under seige: private practive versus public need." Harper's
(October):61-67.
Batshaw, M. L., L. P. Plotnick, B. G. Petty, P. K. Woolf, and E. D. Mellits. 1988. "Academic
promotion at a medical school." New England Journal of Medicine 318(March 24):741-46.
Bayles, M. D. 1981. Professional Ethics. Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.
Beaty, H. N., D. Babbott, E. J. Higgins, P. Jolly, and G. S. Levey. 1986. "Research activities of
faculty in academic departments of medicine." Annals of Internal Medicine 104
(January):90-97.
Bechtel, H. K., Jr. and W. Pearson, Jr. 1985. "Deviant scientists and scientific deviance." Deviant
Behavior 6:237-252.
Berardo, F. M. 1989. "Scientific norms and research publication issues and professional ethics."
Sociological Inquiry 59(3):249-66.
Bernstein, F. C., T. F. Koetzle, J. B. Williams, E. F. Meyer, Jr., M. D. Brice, J. R. Rodgers, O.
Kennard, T. Shimanouchi, and M. Tasumi. 1977. "The protein data bank." European
Journal of Biochemistry 80:319-24.
Beveridge, W. I. B. 1957. The Art of Scientific Investigation. Third edition. Vintage Books, New
York.
Biven, L. W. 1989. "Scientific integrity programs of the Public Health Service." Assistance
Management Journal 5(Fall):21-28.
Blair, C. and W. Schaffer. 1991. "Promotion of the responsible conduct of research." NIH Peer Review
Notes (June):4-6.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

159

Blisset, M. 1972. Politics in Science. Basic Studies in Politics. Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
Bloch, E. 1989. "Changes in NSF proposal format." IMS Bulletin 18(6):577.
Bloch, E. 1991. "Academic research funding: is there a crisis? Optimists, pessimists and realists."
AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy, Washington, D.C., April 11.
Bloom, F. 1989. "Who should police scientific misconduct? Most misconduct is already resolved
within the system." Journal of NIH Research 1(May/June):14.
Bok, D. 1988. "Ethics, the university, and society." Harvard Magazine (May/June):39-50.
Bok, D. 1990. Universities and the Future of America. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C.
Bosk, C. L. 1979. Forgive and Remember: Managing Medical Failure. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Bowen, W. G. and Sosa, J. A. 1989. Prospects for Faculty in the Arts and Sciences: A Study of
Factors Affecting Demand and Supply, 1987 to 2012. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
N.J.
Bowen, W. G., G. Lord, and J. A. Sosa. 1991. "Measuring time to doctorate: reinterpretation of the
evidence." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 88(February 1):713-17.
Boyer, E. L. 1990. The Condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and Trends, 1989, Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Bradshaw, R. A., A. J. Adler, F. Chytil, N. D. Goldberg, and B. J. Litman. 1990. "Bridges committee
procedures." Science 250(November 2):611.
Braunwald, E. 1987. "On analysing scientific fraud." Nature 325(January 15):215-16.
Braxton, J. M. 1992. "The influence of graduate department quality on the sanctioning of scientific
misconduct." Journal of Higher Education , forthcoming.
Brett, J. M., S. B. Goldberg, and W. L. Ury. 1990. "Designing systems for resolving disputes in
organizations." American Psychologist 45(February):162-70.
Bridgstock, M. 1982. "A sociological approach to fraud in science." Australia-New Zealand Journal
of Science 18(3):364-83.
Brigham and Women's Hospital. 1989. Policies on Hospital-Industry Relationships. Brigham and
Women's Hospital, Boston.
Broad, W. J. 1981. "Fraud and the structure of science." Science 212(April 10):137-41.
Broad, W. and Wade, N. 1982. Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science.
Simon and Schuster, New York.
Brooks, H. 1989. "Lessons of history: Successive challenges to science policy." In The Research
System in Transition, Cozzens, S. E., P. Healey, A. Rip, and J. Ziman, (eds.). NATO
Advanced Studies Institute Series, Series D. Volume 57. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston.
Browning, G. 1991. "Testing the hypothesis." National Journal (May 4):1078.
Bulger, R. E. 1988. "The need for an ethical code for teachers of the basic biomedical sciences."
Journal of Medical Education 63(February):131-33.
Burks, C. and L. Tomlinson. 1989. "Submission of data to GenBank." Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 86(January):408.
Burman, K. D. 1982. "Hanging from the masthead': reflections on authorship." Annals of Internal
Medicine 97(4):602-05.
Burton, R. V. 1981. "Landmarks in the literature: Can ethics be taught?" New York University
Education Quarterly 12(3):29-32.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

160

Busch, J. W. 1985. "Mentoring in graduate schools of education: mentors' perceptions." American

Educational Research Journal 22(2):257-65.
Bush, V. 1945. Science, the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President . Office of Scientific
Research and Development. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Calabrese, R. L. and J. T. Cochran. 1990. "The relationship of alienation to cheating among a sample
of American adolescents." Journal of Research and Development in Education 23
(Winter):65-72.
Calkins, E. V., L. M. Arnold, and T. L. Willoughby. 1987. "Perceptions of the role of a faculty
supervisor or 'mentor' at two medical schools." Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education 12(3):202-08.
Calkins, E. V., L. M. Arnold, T. L. Willoughby, and S. C. Hamburger. 1986. "Docents' and students'
perceptions of the ideal and actual role of the docent." Journal of Medical Education 61
(September):743-48.
Callahan, D. and S. Bok. 1980. Ethics Teaching in Higher Education . Plenum Press, New York.
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. 1991. Science and Technology and
the President. Carnegie Commission, New York.
Casper, G. 1990. "University policy documents." The University of Chicago Chronicle (October
25):2.
Cassidy, M. M. and a. E. Shamoo. 1989. "First international conference on scientific data audit,
policies and quality assurance." Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance
1(1):1-3.
Ceci, S. J. 1988. "Scientists' attitudes toward data sharing." Science, Technology, and Human Values
13(1/2):45-52.
Ceci, S. J. and E. Walker. 1983. "Private archives and public needs." American Psychologist 38
(4):414-23.
Cesa, I. L. and S. C. Fraser. 1989. "A method for encouraging the development of good mentorprotege relationships." Teaching of Psychology 16(3):125-28.
Chalk, R. 1978. "Scientific society involvement in whistleblowing." Science, Technology, and Human
Values (January):47-51.
Chalk, R. and P. Woolf. 1989. "Regulating a 'knowledge business'." Issues in Science and Technology
5(Winter):33-35.
Chalk, R., M. Frankel, and S. Chafer. 1981. Professional Ethics Activities in Science and Engineering
Societies. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.
Charrow, R. 1989. "Who should police scientific misconduct? Each new scandal increases the chance
for federal regulation." Journal of NIH Research 1(May/June):15.
Charrow, R. P. 1990. "Scientific misconduct revisited: OSI on trial." Journal of NIH Research 2
(October):83-85.
Charrow, R. P. 1991. "Message to NIH's Office of Scientific Integrity: here comes the judge."
Journal of NIH Research 3(February):97-99.
Chubin, D. E. 1985. "Misconduct in research: an issue of science policy and practice." Minerva 23
(Summer):175-202.
Chubin, D. E. 1988. "Allocating credit and blame in science." Science, Technology, and Human
Values 13(1/2):53-63.
Chubin, D. E. 1990. "Scientific malpractice and the contemporary politics of knowledge." Pp. 144-63
in Theories of Science in Society , Cozzens, S. E. and T. F. Gieryn (eds.). Indiana University
Press, Bloomington, Ind.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

161

Chubin, D. E. and E. J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. SUNY
Series in Science, Technology, and Society. SUNY Press, Albany, N.Y.
Cinkosky, M. J., J. W. Fickett, P. Gilna, and C. Burks. 1991. "Electronic data publishing and
GenBank." Science 252(May 31):1273-77.
Cohen, D. L., L. B. McCullough, R. W. I. Kessel, A. Apostolides, K. Heiderich, and E. R. Alden.
1988. "A national survey concerning the ethical aspects of informed consent and role of
medical students." Journal of Medical Education 63(November):821-29.
Cole, J. F. and J. A. Lipton. 1977. "The reputations of American medical schools." Social Forces
55:662-84.
Cole, S., L. Rubin, and J. R. Cole. 1977. "Peer review and the support of science." Scientific American
237(4):34-41.
Cordes, C. 1990. "U.S. enters lawsuit accusing scientist, institutions of fraud." Chronicle of Higher
Education (September 5):A1.
Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE). 1988. Special Advisory for College and
University Presidents, National Task Force on Higher Education and the Public Interest.
CASE, Washington, D.C.
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). 1990a. Research Student and Supervisor: An Approach to Good
Supervisory Practice. CGS, Washington, D.C.
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). 1990b. Summary of Oral and Written Reports Presented at the
Meeting on the Role and Nature of the Doctoral Dissertation, January 26. CGS,
Washington, D.C.
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). 1990c. The Doctor of Philosophy Degree: A Policy Statement,
Task Force on the Doctor of Philosophy Degree. CGS, Washington, D.C.
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). 1991. The Role and Nature of the Doctoral Dissertation: A
Policy Statement. CGS, Washington, D.C.
Cournand, A. 1977. "The code of the scientist and its relationship to ethics." Science 198(November
18):699-705.
Cournand, A. and M. Meyer. 1976. "The scientist's code." Minerva (Spring):79-96.
Cozzens, S. E. 1989. Social Control and Multiple Discovery in Science: The Opiate Receptor Case.
SUNY Press, Albany, New York.
Cozzens, S. E., P. Healey, A. Rip, and J. Ziman (eds.). 1990. The Research System in Transition.
NATO Advanced Studies Institute Series, Series D, Volume 57. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston.
Cram, D. 1989. "Commentary: Tribe and leader." CGS Communicator 22(April):1.
Crawford, S. and L. Stucki. 1990. "Peer review and the changing research record." Journal of the
American Society for Information Science 41(April):223-28.
Cronan-Hillix, T., L. K. Gensheimer, W. A. Cronan-Hillix, and W. S. Davidson. 1986. "Students'
views of mentors in psychology graduate training." Teaching of Psychology 13(3):123-27.
Crutcher, K. A. 1991. "How to succeed in science." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 34
(Winter):213-18.
Culliton, B. J. 1990. "NIH misconduct probes draw legal complaints." Science 249(July 20):240-43.
Culver, C. M., K. D. Clouser, B. Gert, H. Brody, J. Fletcher, A. Jonsen, L. Kopelman, J. Lynn, M.
Siegler, and D. Wikler. 1985. "Special report: basic curricular goals in medical ethics." New
England Journal of Medicine 312(January 24):253-56.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

162

Dakins, D. R. 1989. "Copyright lawsuit illuminates debate over academic standards." Diagnostic
Imaging (May):54-60.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 1987. "Policy for recording and preserving scientific data." October.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Mass.
Daniels, G. H. 1967. "The pure-science ideal and democratic culture." Science 156(June
30):1699-1706.
David, R. J. and J. A. Kovach. 1979. "Attitudes towards unethical behavior as a function of
educational commercialization." College Student Journal (Winter):338-44.
Davis, B. D. 1989. "Government and quality in science." Science 246(November 10):736.
Davis, M. S. 1989. The Perceived Seriousness and Incidence of Ethical Misconduct in Academic
Science. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus.
Davis, R. D. 1988. "New censors in the academy: two approaches to curb their influence." Science,
Technology, and Human Values 13(1&2):64-74.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1985. ALERT System for Institutions,
Organizations and Individuals Under Investigation for Possible Misconduct in Science or
Subject to Sanctions for Such Misconduct. October 15 draft. Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1986. "Policies and procedures for dealing with
possible misconduct in science." NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 15(July 18):1-37.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1989a. "Responsibilities of PHS awardee and
applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science: final
rule." Federal Register 54(August 8):32446-32451.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1989b. "Statement of organization, functions
and delegations of authority." Public Health Service (PHS). Federal Register 54(March
16):11080-81.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1989c. Draft Standards for the Responsible
Conduct of Science in PHS Intramural Research Programs. Office of Scientific Integrity
Review, Washington, D.C.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1989d. Misconduct in Scientific Research,
Office of Inspector General. OAI-88-07-00420. Washington, D.C.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1990a. Policies and Procedures for Dealing with
Possible Misconduct in Extramural Research . August 30. Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1990b. PHS Workshop: Education and Training
of Scientists in the Responsible Conduct of Research. March 8-9. Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1990c. Workshop on Data Management in
Biomedical Research: Background Papers. April 25-26. Public Health Service,
Washington, D.C.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1991a. "Proposed policies and procedures for
dealing with possible scientific misconduct in extramural research." Federal Register 56
(June 13):27384-94.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1991b. First Annual Report: Scientific
Misconduct Investigations Reviewed by Office of Scientific Integrity Review, March 1989 December 1990. Office of Scientific Integrity Review, Washington, D.C.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

163

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1991c. Data Management in Biomedical
Research: Report of a Workshop, Office of Scientific Integrity Review, Public Health
Service, Washington, D.C.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 1991d. Minutes, Meetings of the OSIR Advisory
Committee. Office of Scientific Integrity Review. July 15 and November 17. OSIR,
Washington, D.C.
Dewald, W. G., J. G. Thursby, and R. G. Anderson. 1986. ''Replication in empirical economics: The
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking project." American Economic Review 76(4):587-603.
Diamond, A. L. and D. R. Laurance. 1985. "Product liability in respect of drugs." British Medical
Journal 290(February 2):365-68.
Dickinson, J. P. 1984. Science and Scientific Researchers in Modern Society. UNESCO, Paris.
Djerassi, C. 1986. "Castor's dilemma." The Hudson Review 39(3):405-18.
Djerassi, C. 1989. Cantor's Dilemma. Doubleday. New York.
Donaldson, V. H. 1984. "When things are not as they seem." The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical
Medicine 103(April):491-96.
Dong, E. 1991. "Confronting scientific fraud." The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 9):A52.
Duke University. 1988. Code of Policy and Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Scientific
Fraud or Misconduct. Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dworkin, G. 1983. "Fraud and science." Pp. 65-74 in Research Ethics . Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York.
[Reprinted from Progress in Clinical Biological Research, Volume 128, 1983.]
Edsall, J. T. 1975. Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, Committee on Scientific Freedom and
Responsibility. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.
Edsall, J. T. 1981. "Two aspects of scientific responsibility." Science 212(April 3):11-14.
Eisenberg, R. S. 1989. "Patents and the progress of science: exclusive rights and experimental use."
University of Chicago Law Review 56(Summer):1017-86.
Eisenhut, L. P. 1990. "Universitt prft Anschuldigungen gegen Professorin." Kolner Stadtanzeiger
(October 24).
Ellenberg, J. H. 1983. "Ethical guidelines for statistical practice: a historical perspective." The
American Statistician 37(February):1-4.
Emory University. 1991. Draft Proposal for a University-wide Policy for Research Conduct:
Guidelines for the Conduct of Research and Scholarship, March 20 draft. Emory
University, Atlanta, Ga.
Engler, R. L., J. W. Covell, P. J. Friedman, P. S. Kitcher, and R. M. Peters. 1987. "Misrepresentation
and responsibility in medical research." New England Journal of Medicine 317(November
26):1383-89.
Epstein, R. 1986. "On drafting rules and procedures for academic fraud." Minerva 24(SummerAutumn):344-46.
Erkut, S. and J. R. Mokros. 1984. "Professors as models and mentors for college students." American
Educational Research Journal 21(2):399-417.
Eser, A. 1987. "Researcher as "offender" and "victim"--comparative observations as to freedom and
responsibility of science and technology." Brigham Young University Law Review 1987
(2):571-85.
Etnier, C. 1986. "Secrecy and the young researcher." Technology in Society 8:267-71.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

164

Evanoski, P. O. 1988. "The role of mentoring in higher education." Community Review 8(2):22-27.
Fass, R. A. 1990. "Cheating and plagiarism." Pp. 170-84 in Ethics and Higher Education, May, W.
M. (ed.). American Council on Education. Macmillan, New York.
Feinstein, R. J. 1985. "The ethics of professional regulation." New England Journal of Medicine 312
(March 21):801-04.
Feynman, Richard. 1985. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman. W. W. Norton, New York.
Fletcher, R. 1987. "The doubtful case of Cyril Burt." Social Policy & Administration 21(1):40-57.
Florman, S. C. 1978. "Moral blueprints: on regulating the ethics of engineers." Harper's
(October):30-33.
Foelsing, A. 1984. Der Mogelfaktor. Hamburg, pp. 20-21.
Fox, R. 1985. "Reflections and opportunities in the sociology of medicine." Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 26(March):6-14.
Francis, J. R. 1990. "The credibility and legitimation of science: a loss of faith in the scientific
narrative." Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 1(1):5-22.
Frankel, M. 1988. "In the news." Professional Ethics Report (Fall):1.
Frankel, M. S. 1989. "Professional codes: why, how, and with what impact?" Journal of Business
Ethics 8:109-15.
Frazer, M. J. and A. Kornhauser (eds.). 1986. Ethics and Social Responsibility of Science Education.
ICSU Press, New York.
Freedman, D. X. 1988. "The meaning of full disclosure." Archives of General Psychiatry 45
(July):689-91.
Freidson, E. 1970. Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. Dodd,
Mead, and Company, New York.
Friedman, P. J. 1988. "Research ethics, due process, and common sense." Journal of the American
Medical Association 260(October 7):1937-38.
Friedman, R. S. and R. C. Friedman. 1982. Role of University Organized Research Units in Academic
Science. NSF/PRM 82-004. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Fruton, J. S. 1990. Contrasts in Scientific Style: Research Groups in the Chemical and Biochemical
Sciences. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Galtung, J. 1983. "Researchers, elites, and people in a rapidly changing world." Pp. 95-108 in
Research Ethics. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York.
Gaston, J. 1978. "Disputes and deviant views about the ethos of science." In The Reward System in
British and American Science. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Geiger, R. L. 1990. "The American University and Research." Pp. 15-35 in The Academic Research
Enterprise within the Industrialized Nations: Comparative Perspectives, GovernmentUniversity-Industry Research Roundtable. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Geis, G. and R. F. Meier (eds.). 1977. White-collar Crime: Offenses in Business, Politics, and the
Professions. The Free Press, New York.
Gert, B., W. A. Nelson, and C. M. Culver. 1989. "Moral theory and neurology." Neurologic Clinics
7(November):681-96.
Gjerde, C. L. and S. E. Colombo. 1982. "Promotion criteria: perceptions of faculty members and
departmental chairmen." Journal of Medical Education 57(March):157-62.
Glazer, M. P. and Glazer, P. M. 1990. The Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and
Industry. Basic Books, New York.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

Glazer, S. 1988. "Combating science fraud." CQ Editorial Research Reports 2(August 5):390.
Glick, J. L. 1990. "On the potential cost effectiveness of scientific audits." Accountability in
Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 1(1):77-83.
Gluck, M. E., D. Blumenthal, and M. A. Stoto. 1987. "University-industry relationships in the life
sciences: implications for students and post-doctoral fellows." Research Policy 16:327-36.
Golberg, L. 1982. "A code of ethics for scientists reporting and reviewing information on chemicals."
Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 2(11-12):289-92.
Goldschmidt, R. B. 1956. Portraits from Memory: Recollections of a Zoologist. University of
Washington Press, Seattle.
Goodstein, D. 1991. "Scientific fraud." American Scholar 60(4):505-15.
Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR). 1989. Science and Technology in
the Academic Enterprise: Status, Trends, and Issues. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C.
Green, H. P. 1987. "Scientific responsibility and the law." Journal of Law Reform 20
(Summer):1009-27.
Greene, P. J., J. S. Durch, W. Horwitz, and V. Hooper. 1985. "Policies for responding to allegations
of fraud in research." Minerva 23(Summer):203-215.
Grinnel, F. 1987. The Scientific Attitude. Westview, Boulder, Colo.
Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP). 1990. A Casebook in Psychiatric Ethics, GAP
Committee on Medical Education. Brunner/Mazel, New York.
Grouse, L. D. 1982. "Dealing with alleged fraud in medical research." Journal of the American
Medical Association 248(October 1):1637-38.
Haas, W. 1991. "An overview of optical disk imaging." Unpublished paper .
Hackett, E. J. 1990. "Science as a vocation in the 1990s: the changing organizational culture of
academic science." Journal of Higher Education 61(3):241-79.
Hackett, E. J. and D. E. Chubin. 1990. "Scientific malpractice and the politics of knowledge." Annual
meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Minneapolis, October.
Hagstrom, W. O. 1965. The Scientific Community. Basic Books, New York.
Hall, E. C., C. M. Huguley, Jr., P. N. Symbas, and N. C. Moran. 1985. "Research of Dr. John R.
Darsee at Emory University." Minerva 23(Summer):276-304.
Hallum, J. V. and S. W. Hadley. 1990. "OSI: why, what, and how." ASM News (12):647-51.
Hallum, J. V. and S. W. Hadley. 1991. "Editorial: rights to due process in instances of possible
scientific misconduct." Endocrinology 128(2):643-44.
Hamilton, D. P. 1990. "PNAS bars papers from UC geneticist." Science 249(August 10):622.
Hamilton, D. P. 1991a. "Can OSI withstand a scientific backlash?" Science 253:1084-1086.
Hamilton, D. P. 1991b. "NIH finds fraud in Cell paper." Science 251(March 29):1552-54.
Hanna, K. E. 1989. "Collaborative research in biomedicine: resolving conflicts." Background paper,
Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Government-Industry Collaboration in
Biomedical Research and Education, Washington, D.C.
Hansen, B. C. and K. D. Hansen. 1991a. "The proper role of the Office of Scientific Integrity:
institutional vs. federal responsibilities." FASEB Journal 5(11):2507-2508.
Hansen, B. C. and K. D. Hansen. 1991b. "Scientific fraud and the Public Health Service Act: a
critical analysis." FASEB Journal 5(11):2512-2515.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

166

Hardy, R. J. and D. Burch. 1981. "What political science professors should know in dealing with
academic misconduct." Teaching Political Science 9(Fall):5-14.
Harvard University Faculty of Medicine. 1988. Guidelines for Investigators in Scientific Research,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Also published in Clinical Research 37(April
1989):192-93.]
Harvard University Faculty of Medicine. 1990. Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Commitment.
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., March 22.
Healy, B., L. Campeau, R. Gray, J. A. Herd, B. Hoogwerf, D. Hunninghake, G. Knatterud, W.
Stewart, and C. White, et al. 1989. "Conflict-of-interest guidelines for a multicenter clinical
trial of treatment after coronary-artery bypass-graft surgery." New England Journal of
Medicine 320(April 6):949-51.
Heinz, L. and D. Chubin. 1988. "Congress investigates scientific fraud." BioScience
(September):559-61.
Hendrickson, R. M. 1988. "Removing tenured faculty for cause." Educational Law Reporter 44(April
14):483-94.
Hill, S., E. Kogler, M. H. Bahniuk, and J. Dobos. 1989. "The impact of mentoring and collegial
support on faculty success: an analysis of support behavior, information adequacy, and
communication apprehension." Communication Education 38(January):15-33.
Hinder, S. and P. Halfpenny. 1990. "Potential for sharing research equipment." Science and Public
Policy 17(2):105-10.
Hollis, B. W. 1987. "I turned in my mentor." The Scientist 1(December 14):11-12.
Holton, G. 1975. "On the role of themata in scientific thought." Science 188(April 25):328-34.
Holton, G. 1978. The Scientific Imagination: Case Studies. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Holton, G. 1988. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein. Revised edition. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Holton, G. 1990. "The drive to unity in physics, and the drive to delegitimate science." April 17.
Andrew Gemant Award Lecture at the American Physical Society, Washington, D.C.
Hoshiko, Tom. 1991. "Facing ethical dilemmas: Scientists must lead the charge." The Scientist
(October 28):11, 13-14.
Hull, David. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual
Development of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hunter, H. O. 1985. "Academic self-government in the United States." Minerva 23(Spring):1-28.
Huth, E. 1986a. "Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication." Annals of Internal Medicine
104(2):258-65.
Huth, E. J. 1986b. "Abuses and uses of authorship." Annals of Internal Medicine 104
(February):266-67.
Huth, E. J. 1986c. "Guidelines on authorship of medical papers." Annals of Internal Medicine 104
(February):269-74.
Huth, E. J. 1988. Scientific Authorship and Publication: Process, Standards, Problems, Suggestions.
Background paper, Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Responsible Conduct of
Research, Washington, D.C.
Industrial Chemist. 1987a. "Do you ever fake a research result?" February.
Industrial Chemist. 1987b. "Error and fraud in the lab." May, p. 84.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1989a. The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences,
Committee on the Responsible Conduct of Research, Division of Health Sciences Policy.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1989b. Report of a Workshop, Committee on Government-Industry

Collaboration in Biomedical Research and Education. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 1985. "Style matters: guidelines on authorship."
British Medical Journal 291(September 14):722.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 1988. "Uniform requirements for manuscripts
submitted to biomedical journals." Annals of Internal Medicine 108(February):258-66.
International Statistical Institute. 1986. "ISI declaration on professional ethics." International
Statistical Review 54(2):227-42.
Jackson, C. I. and J. W. Prados. 1983. "Honor in science." American Scientist 71(Sept.-Oct.):462-64.
Jacobstein, J. 1987. "I am not optimistic." The Scientist 1(December 14):11-12.
Jasanoff, S. 1988. Good Laboratory Practices: Regulating Responsibility in Science. Background
paper, Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Responsible Conduct of Research,
Washington, D.C.
Jayaraman, K. S. 1991. "Gupta faces suspension." Nature 349(February 21):645.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. 1989. Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Conflict
of Interest. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. 1990. Rules and Guidelines for Responsible Conduct
of Research. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Jonsen, A. R. 1984. "Public policy and human research." Pp. 3-20 in Biomedical Ethics Reviews,
Humber, J. M. and R. T. Almeder (eds.). Humana, Clifton, N.J.
Joynson, R. B. 1989. The Burt Affair. Routledge, London.
Kaplin, W. A. 1986. The Law and Higher Education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Karlins, M., C. Michaels, and S. Podlogar. 1988. "An empirical investigation of actual cheating in a
large sample of undergraduates." Research in Higher Education 29(4):359-364.
Kass, L. R. 1983. "Professing ethically." Journal of the American Medical Association 249(March
11):1305-10.
Keenan, C. E., G. C. Brown, H. N. Pontell, and G. Geis. 1985. "Medical students' attitudes on
physician fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs." Journal of Medical
Education 60(March):167-73.
Kennedy, D. 1989. "Statement on academic authorship." Stanford University Research Policy
Handbook. Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
Kennedy, D. 1991. The Improvement of Teaching. Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
Kleppner, D. 1991. "The mismeasure of science." The Sciences (May/June):18-21.
Klotz, I. M. 1985. Diamond Dealers and Feather Merchants: Tales from the Sciences. Birkhauser,
Boston.
Knight, E. J. 1990. Scientific Misconduct and Self-Deception. Senior honors thesis. University of
Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
Knight, J. 1991. "Scientific misconduct: the rights of the accused." Issues in Science and Technology
8(1):28-29.
Knight, J. A. 1984. "Exploring the compromise of ethical principles in science." Perspectives in
Biology and Medicine 27(3):432-42.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. and M. Mulkay (eds.). 1983. Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study
of Science. Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Knox, P. L. and T. V. McGovern. 1988. "Mentoring women in academia." Teaching of Psychology
15(1):39-41.
Knox, R. A. 1983a. "The Harvard fraud case: where does the problem lie?" Journal of the American
Medical Association 249(April 8):1797-1806.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

168

Knox, R. A. 1983b. "Deeper problems for Darsee: Emory probe." Journal of the American Medical
Association 249(June 3):2867-76.
Kohn, A. 1986. False Prophets: Fraud and Error in Science and Medicine. Basil Blackwell, New
York.
Koj, A. 1990. "Complex responsibilities of scientists in the contemporary world." Science and Public
Policy 17(2):78-81.
Koshland, D. E. 1987. "Fraud in science." Science 235(January 9):141.
Koshland, D. E. 1988a. "Science, journalism, and whistle-blowing." Science 240(April 29):585.
Koshland, D. E. 1988b. "The price of progress." Science 241(August 5):637.
Koshland, D. E. 1990. "Conflict of interest." Science 249(July 13):109.
Kreytbosch, C. E. and S. L. Messinger. 1968. "Unequal peers: the situation of researchers at
Berkeley." American Behavioral Scientist 11(5):33-43.
Kubie, L. S. 1953. "Some unsolved problems of the scientific career, part II." American Scientist
(November):101-12.
Kuyper, B. J. 1991. "Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research." Bioscience
(April):248-50.
Lane, J., R. Ray, and D. Glennon. 1990. "Work profiles of research statisticians." American
Statistician 44(February):9-13.
Langmuir, I. "Pathological science: scientific studies based on non-existent phenomena."
Speculations in Science and Technology 8(2):77-94.
Lanza-Kaduce, L. 1980. "Deviance among professionals: the case of unnecessary surgery." Deviant
Behavior 1:333-59.
Laor, N. 1985. "Prometheus the impostor." British Medical Journal 290(March 2):681-84.
LaPidus, J. B. and B. Mishkin. 1990. "Values and ethics in the graduate education of scientists." Pp.
283-298 in Ethics and Higher Education, May, W. W. (ed.). American Council on
Education. Macmillan, New York.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Sage
Library of Social Research, 80. Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Lauscher, S. 1987. "Scientific misconduct: a case study." Grants Magazine 10(3):143-49.
Lawson, A. J. 1989. "The organic chemist and the personal computer." Impact of Science on Society
39(4):291-302.
Lederman, L. M. 1990. Science: The End of the Frontier? Report to the Board of Directors of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, Washington, D.C.
Lee, B. G. 1978. "Fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid." Administrative Law Review
30:301-43.
Levy, C. S. 1979. "Professional ethics: dilemmas of code construction." National Conference of
Social Welfare, Philadelphia, May 15.
Lewin, B. 1987. "Fraud in science: the burden of proof." Cell 48(January 16):1-2.
Lewin, B. 1989. "Fraud and the fabric of science." Cell 57(June 2):699-700.
Lind, S. E. 1986. "Fee-for-service research." New England Journal of Medicine 314(January
30):312-15.
Lipschutz, S. B. 1990. "Toward independent scholarship: collaborative research relationships in
doctoral education." CGS Communicator (April):1-2.
List, C. J. 1985. "Scientific fraud: social deviance or the failure of virtue?" Science, Technology, and
Human Values 10(4):27-36.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

Littlejohn, M. J. and C. M. Matthews. 1989. Scientific Misconduct in Academia: Efforts to Address

the Issue. 89-392 SPR. Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., June 30.
Lo, B. 1987. "Behind closed doors: promises and pitfalls of ethics committees." New England
Journal of Medicine 317(July 2):46-50.
Lock, S. 1985. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine . ISI Press, Philadelphia.
Lock, S. 1988a. "Fraud in medicine." British Medical Journal 296(February 6):376-77.
Lock, S. 1988b. "Scientific misconduct." British Medical Journal 297(September 24):1531-1535.
Lock, S. 1990. "Medical misconduct: A survey in Britain." In Ethics and Policy in Scientific
Publication, Bailar et al. (eds.). Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda, Md.
Lock, S. 1991. "Where do we go from here?" Nature 350(April 11):530.
Long, J. S. and R. McGinnis. 1981. "Organizational context and scientific productivity." American
Sociological Review 46(August):422-42.
Long, J. S. and R. McGinnis. 1985. "The effects of the mentor on the academic career."
Scientometrics 7(3-6):255-280.
Long, J. S., P. D. Allison, and R. McGinnis. 1979. "Entrance into the academic career." American
Sociological Review 44(5):816-30.
Lovain, T. B. 1983-1984. "Grounds for dismissing tenured postsecondary faculty for cause." Journal
of College and University Law 10(3):419-33.
Lundberg, G. D. and A. Flanagin. 1989. "New requirements for authors: signed statements of
authorship responsibility and financial disclosure." Journal of the American Medical
Association 262(October 13):2003-05.
Maddox, J. 1988a. "Why the pressure to publish?" Nature 333(June 9):493.
Maddox, J. 1988b. "Can a Greek tragedy be avoided?" Nature 333(June 30):795-97.
Maddox, J. 1989a. "Making good databanks better." Nature 341(September 28):277.
Maddox, J. 1989b. "Is the salami sliced too thin?" Nature 342(December 14):733.
Maddox, J. 1989c. "Making authors toe the line." Nature 342(December 21/28):855.
Maddox, J. 1990a. "What to do with extraneous data." Nature 346(July 19):215.
Maddox, J. 1990b. "Should camp-followers be policemen?" Nature 348(November 8):107.
Maddox, J. 1991. "Secret Service as ultimate referee." Nature 350(April 18):553.
Majerus, P. W. 1982. "Fraud in medical research." Journal of Clinical Investigation 70(July):213-17.
Manwell, C. and C. M. Ann Baker. 1981. "Honesty in science: a partial test of a sociobiological
model of the social structure of science." Search 12(6):151-59.
Martin, B. 1986. "Bias in awarding research grants." British Medical Journal 293(August 30):550-52.
Martin, H. C., R. M. Ohmann, and J. Wheatly. 1969. The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition. Third
edition. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Martin, R. G. 1990. "Scientific hype." New Biologist 2(9):747-49.
May, W. F. 1980. "Professional ethics: setting, terrain, and teacher." Pp. 205-41 in Ethics Teaching in
Higher Education, Callahan, D. and S. Bok (eds.). Plenum Press, New York.
May, W. W. (ed.). 1990. Ethics and Higher Education. American Council on Education. Macmillan,
New York.
Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Mayr, Ernst. 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

170

Mazlish, B. 1982. "The quality of 'The Quality in Science': An evaluation." Pp. 48-67 in Quality in
Science, La Follette, M. C. (ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Mazur, Allan. 1989. "Allegations of dishonesty in research and their treatment by American
universities." Minerva 27:177-194.
McBride, G. 1974. "The Sloan-Kettering affair: could it have happened anywhere?" Journal of the
American Medical Association 229(September 9):1391-1410.
McCain, K. W. 1991. "Communication, competition and secrecy." Science, Technology, and Human
Values 16(4):491-516.
McGarity, T. O. 1990. "Public participation in data audits." Accountability in Research: Policies and
Quality Assurance 1(1):47-52.
McGinnis, R. and J. S. Long. 1988. "Entry into academia: effects of stratification, geography, and
ecology." Pp. 28-51 in Academic Labor Markets and Academic Careers in American Higher
Education, Breneman, D. W. and T. I. K. Youn (eds.). Falmer, New York.
McGinnis, R., P. D. Allison, and J. S. Long. 1982. "Postdoctoral training in bioscience: allocation and
outcome." Social Forces 60(3):701-22.
Meadow, C. T. 1990. "Perspectives on Evaluation of scientific information: peer review and the
impact of new information technology, introduction and overview." Journal of the American
Society for Information Science 41(April):214-15.
Medawar, P. 1964. "Is the scientific paper fraudulent? yes; it misrepresents scientific thought."
Saturday Review (August 1):42-43.
Medawar, P. 1984. The Limits of Science. Harper and Row, New York.
Medawar, P. B. 1979. Advice to a Young Scientist. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Series. Harper and
Row, New York.
Menninger, D. C. 1990. "Scientific misconduct and the federal response." Paper presented to the
annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, September 2.
Merriam, S. B., T. K. Thomas, and C. P. Zeph. 1987. "Mentoring in higher education: what we
know." The Review of Higher Education 11(2):199-210.
Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Storer, N.
W. (ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Miceli, M. P., J. B. Dozier, and J. P. Near. 1991. "Blowing the whistle on data fudging: a controlled
field experiment." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21(4):271-95.
Miers, M. L. 1985. "Current NIH perspectives on misconduct in science." American Psychologist 40
(7):831-35.
Mishkin, B. 1988. "Responding to scientific misconduct: due process and prevention." Journal of the
American Medical Association 260(October 7):1932-36.
Mishkin, B. 1991a. "First annual report of scientific misconduct investigations reviewed by OSIR--a
review and analysis." Professional Ethics Report (Spring):305.
Mishkin, B. 1991b. "Cooperation between academia and industry: opportunities and challenges."
Fidia Research Foundation Ethical Issues in Research, Washington, D.C., March 29-30.
Mitroff, I. I. 1974. The Subjective Side of Science: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Psychology of the
Apollo Moon Scientists. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Mulkay, M. J. 1975. "Norms and ideology in science." Social Science Information 15(4/5):637-56.
Mulkay, M. and G. N. Gilbert. 1982. "Accounting for error: how scientists construct their social world
when they account for correct and incorrect belief." Sociology 16:165-72.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1989. On Being A Scientist, Committee on the Conduct of
Science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council (NAS-NRC). 1984. Science and
Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 1990. Faculty in Higher Education Institutions,
1988. NCES 90-365. Office of Education Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of
Education. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
1978. Report and Recommendations: Institutional Review Boards. DHEW (OS) 78-0008.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
National Institutes of Health (NIH). 1987. "NIH policy relating to reporting and distribution of unique
biological materials produced with NIH funding." NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 16
(October 23):1-3.
National Institutes of Health (NIH). 1988a. "Misconduct in science assurance." NIH Guide for Grants
and Contracts 17(January 15):1-2.
National Institutes of Health (NIH). 1988b. "PHS policy relating to distribution of unique research
resources produced with PHS funding." NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 17(September
16):1-2.
National Institutes of Health. 1988c. Retreat Summary Report: Retreat on Conflict of Interest in
Collaborations with Industry. December 19-20. Office of Invention Development,
Bethesda, Md.
National Institutes of Health (NIH). 1990. Guidelines for the Conduct of Research at the National
Institutes of Health. NIH, Bethesda, Md.
National Institutes of Health (NIH). 1991. NIH Data Book. NIH 91-126. September. Bethesda, Md.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
(ADAMHA). 1989. "Requirement for programs on the responsible conduct of research in
national research service award institutional training programs." NIH Guide for Grants and
Contracts 18(December 22):1.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
(ADAMHA). 1990. "Reminder and update: requirement for programs on the responsible
conduct of research in national research service award institutional training programs." NIH
Guide for Grants and Contracts 19(August 17):1.
National Research Council (NRC). 1981. Postdoctoral Appointments and Disappointments ,
Committee on a Study of Postdoctorals in Science and Engineering in the United States.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1985. Sharing Research Data, Fienberg, S. E., M. E. Martin, and
M. L. Straf (eds.). National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). Summary Report. 1989. Doctorate Recipients from United States
Universities, Office of Science and Engineering Policy. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
National Science Board (NSB). 1988. Report of the NSB Committee on Openness of Scientific
Communication. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
National Science Board (NSB). 1989. Science and Engineering Indicators . NSB 89-1. National
Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1987. "Misconduct in science and engineering research: final
regulations." Federal Register 52(July 1):24466-24470.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1989a. Report of NSF Staff Committee on Sharing. Office of the
General Counsel, NSF, Washington, D.C.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

172

National Science Foundation (NSF). 1989b. "Important Notice to Presidents of Colleges and
Universities and Heads of Other National Science Foundation Grantees Organizations."
Notice No. 106. April 17. NSF, Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1989c. Seminnual Report to the Congress. Number 1. Office of
Inspector General, NSF, Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1990a. Semiannual Report to the Congress. Number 2. Office of
Inspector General, NSF, Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1990b. Semiannual Report to the Congress. Number 3. Office of
Inspector General, NSF, Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1990c. The State of Academic Science and Engineering. NSF,
Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1990d. Survey Data on the Extent of Misconduct in Science and
Engineering. OIG-90-3214. Office of Inspector General, NSF, Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1991a. Semiannual Report to the Congress. Number 4. Office of
Inspector General, NSF, Washington, D.C.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1991b. "Misconduct in science and engineering: final rule."
Federal Register 56(May 14):22286-90.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1991c. Semiannual Report to the Congress. Number 5. Office of
Inspector General, NSF, Washington, D.C.
Neidle, E. A. 1985. "The mentor apprentice program: a modest proposal for alleviating the scarcity of
clinical research in dentistry." Journal of Dental Education 49(5):272-74.
Nelkin, D. 1983. "Whistle blowing and social responsibility science." Pp. 351-57 in Research Ethics.
Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York. [Reprinted from Progress in Clinical Biological Research,
Volume 128, 1983.]
Nelkin, D. 1984. Science as Intellectual Property. Macmillan, New York.
New England Journal of Medicine. 1992. "Information for authors." April 2.
Newhouse, R. C. 1982. "Alienation and cheating behavior in the school environment." Psychology in
the Schools 19(April):234-37.
Nobel, J. J. 1990. "Comparison of research quality guidelines in academic and nonacademic
environments." Journal of the American Medical Association 263(March 9):1435-37.
Novack, J. M. and A. C. Bennett. 1983. "Informally inviting moral development: teacher perception
and behaviour regarding the handling of moral transgressions." Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Nowack, J. A. 1989. The University-Policy Environment for University-Industry Interactions.
Background paper, Committee on Government-Industry Collaboration in Biomedical
Research and Education, Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C.
Nowak, T., R. Rotunda, and J. Young. 1983. Constitutional Law. Second edition. West Publishing,
St. Paul, Minn.
Nuss, E. M. "Academic integrity: comparing faculty and student attitudes." Improving College and
University Teaching 32(3):140-44.
Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU). 1990. Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct. ORAU
90/J-125. Department of Energy, ORAU, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1986a. The Regulatory Environment for Science.
Technical Memorandum. OTA, Washington, D.C.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1986b. Research Funding as an Investment: Can We
Measure the Returns? OTA-TM-SET-36. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1990. ''Proposal pressure in the 1980s: An indicator of
stress on the federal research system." Staff paper. OTA, Washington, D.C., April.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1991. Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade.
OTA-SET-490. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C..
O'Reilly, J. T. 1990. "More gold and more fleece: improving the legal sanctions against medical
research fraud." Administrative Law Review 42(Summer):393-422.
Osmond, D. H. 1983. "Malice's wonderland: research funding and peer review." Journal of
Neurobiology 14(2):95-112.
O'Toole, M. 1991. "Margot O'Toole's record of events." Nature 351 (May 16):180-82.
Parmley, W. W. 1990. "21st Bethesda conference: ethics in cardiovascular medicine." Journal of the
American College of Cardiology 16(July)(1):1-36.
Petersdorf, R. G. 1982. "Preventing and investigating fraud in research." Journal of Medical
Education 57:880-81.
Petersdorf, R. G. 1986. "The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science." Annals of Internal Medicine
104(February):252-54.
Petersdorf, R. G. 1989. "A matter of integrity." Academic Medicine (March):119-23.
Phillip, Kathryn. 1991. "Making the transition from bench scientist to lab leader." The Scientist (April
1):18-19.
Pigman, Ward and Emmett B. Carmichael. 1950. "An ethical code for scientists." Science (June
16):643-647.
Pinch, T. 1990. "The role of scientific communities in the development of science." Impact of Science
on Society (159):219-25.
Pincus, K. V. 1990. "Financial auditing and fraud detection: implications for scientific data audit."
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 1(1):53-70.
Polanyi, M. 1951. The Logic of Liberty. International Library of Sociology and Social
Reconstruction. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Polanyi, M. 1962a. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy . University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Polanyi, M. 1962b. "The republic of science: its political and economic theory." Minerva 1
(Autumn):54-73.
Pontell, H. N., P. D. Jesilow, and G. Geis. 1982. "Policing physicians: practitioner fraud and abuse in a
government medical program." Social Problems 30(1):117-25.
Pratt, C. B. and G. W. McLaughlin. 1989. "An analysis of predictors of college students' ethical
inclinations." Research in Higher Education 30(2):195-219.
Price, D. K. 1979. "The ethical principles of scientific institutions." Science, Technology, and Human
Values 4(1):46-60. [Originally presented at Nobel Symposium No. 44, Stockholm, 1978.]
Price, D. K. 1985. America's Unwritten Constitution: Science, Religion, and Political Responsibility.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Princeton Conference on Honor Systems. 1988. Codes and Regulations . Princeton University,
Princeton, N.J., February.
Rall, J. E. 1990. "Conflict of interest as it relates to intramural scientists at the National Institutes of
Health." Presented to the Endocrine Society, Atlanta, June 20.
Raub, W. F. 1990. "Statement of the Acting Director, NIH." U.S. Congress, House of
Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Washington, D.C., April 30.
Raub, W. F. 1991. "Testimony." U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Washington, D.C., March 6.
Ravetz, J. 1971. Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

174

Rawles, B. A. 1980. The Influence of a Mentor on the Level of Self-Actualization of American

Scientists. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Relman, A. S. 1983. "Lessons from the Darsee affair." New England Journal of Medicine 308(June
9):1415-17.
Relman, A. S. 1984. "Responsibilities of authorship: where does the buck stop?" New England
Journal of Medicine 310(April 19):1048-49.
Relman, A. S. 1985. "Professional regulation and the state medical boards." New England Journal of
Medicine 312(March 21):784-85.
Relman, A. S. 1989. "Economic incentives in clinical investigation." New England Journal of
Medicine 320(April 6):933-34.
Relman, A. S. 1990. "New 'information for authors'--and readers." New England Journal of Medicine
323(July 5):56, 72.
Remington, J. A. 1988. "Beyond big science in America: the binding of inquiry." Social Studies of
Science 18:45-72.
Rennie, D. 1986. "Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review." Journal of the
American Medical Association 256(November 7):2391-92.
Rennie, D. 1989. "Editors and auditors." Journal of the American Medical Association 261(May
5):2543-45. [With letters.]
Rest, J. R. 1988. "Can ethics be taught in professional schools? The psychological research." Easier
Said Than Done (Winter):22-26.
Rider, R. E. 1991. "Saving the records of big science." American Libraries (February):166-68.
Rip, A. 1988. "Contextual transformations in contemporary science." Pp. 59-85 in Keeping Science
Straight: A Critical Look at the Assessment of Science and Technology, Jamison, A. (ed.).
Department of Theory of Science and Center for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of
Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Rodman, H. 1970. "The moral responsibility of journal editors and referees." The American
Sociologist 5(November):351-57.
Rodwin, M. A. 1989. "Physicians' conflicts of interest." New England Journal of Medicine 321
(November 16):1405-08.
Roe, R. 1990. A Bill: To Promote the Integrity of Scientific Research, and for Other Purposes . U.S.
Congress, House of Representatives. 101st Cong., 2nd sess., April 20. [Discussion draft; not
introduced.]
Rosner, J. L. 1990. "Reflections of science as a product." Nature 345(May 10):108.
Ross, M., I. J. Winograd, and J. L. Cook. 1989. "Report to the Director [of the U.S. Geological
Survey]." January 25. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Rostand, J. 1960. Error and Deception in Science: Essays on Biological Aspects of Life. Translated
from the French by A. J. Pomerans. Basic Books, New York.
Roth, J. A. 1966. "Hired hand research." The American Sociologist (August):190-96.
Rothschild, L. 1972. "Forty-five varieties of research (and development)." Nature 239(October
13):373-78.
Royal College of Physicians. 1991. Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research: Causes,
Investigation and Prevention. Royal College of Physicians of London, London.
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). 1988. Guidance on Professional Conduct. Burlington House,
Royal Society of Chemistry, London.
Ruegg, W. 1986. "The academic ethos." Minerva 24(Winter):393-412.
Rutherford, D. G. and S. G. Olswang. 1981. "Academic misconduct: the due process rights of
students." National Association of Student Personnel Administrators 19(Fall):12-16.
Sapp, J. 1990. Where the Truth Lies: Franz Moewus and the Origins of Molecular Biology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

Scheers, N. J. and C. M. Dayton. 1987. "Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using
the randomized response technique." Research in Higher Education 26(1):61-69.
Schein, E. H. 1990. "Organizational culture." American Psychologist 45(February):109-119.
Schmaus, W. 1983a. "Fraud and negligence in science." Connecticut Medicine 47(March):155-58.
Schmaus, W. 1983b. "Fraud and the norms of science." Science, Technology, and Human Values 8
(4):12-22.
Shader, R. I. and D. J. Greenblatt. 1987. "Authorship and co-authorship--working out the meaning."
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 7(5):293.
Shapiro, M. F. and R. P. Charrow. 1985. "Scientific misconduct in investigational drug trials." New
England Journal of Medicine 312(March 14):731-36.
Shapiro, M. F. and R. P. Charrow. 1989. "The role of data audits in detecting scientific misconduct."
Journal of the American Medical Association 261(17):2505-11.
Shils, E. 1990a. "The university world turned upside down: does confidentiality of assessment by
peers guarantee the quality of academic appointment?" Minerva 28(3):324-34.
Shils, E. 1990b. "The university world turned upside down: does confidentiality of assessment by
peers guarantee the quality of academic appointment? part II." Minerva 28(4):469-85.
Sigma Xi. 1986. Honor in Science. Second edition. Sigma Xi, New Haven, Conn.
Sigma Xi. 1987. A New Agenda for Science. Sigma Xi, New Haven, Conn.
Sigma Xi. 1989. Sketches of the American Scientist. Sigma Xi, New Haven, Conn.
Sindermann, C. J. 1985. The Joy of Science: Excellence and its Rewards . Plenum Press, New York.
Sindermann, C. J. 1987. Survival Strategies for New Scientists. Plenum Press, New York.
Smith, B. L. R. 1990. American Science Policy Since World War II. The Brookings Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Smith, J. M., P. N. Chase, and J. J. Byrd. 1986. "A formalized mentor system in an educational
setting." Engineering Education 76(4):216-18.
Snyder, R. G. 1988. The Federal Research Assistantship: Indicators of Utilization in Graduate
Research Training in Science and Engineering . Council of Graduate Schools, Washington,
D.C.
Soskolne, C. L. 1989. "Epidemiology: questions of science, ethics, morality, and law." American
Journal of Epidemiology 129(January):1-18.
Sprague, R. L. 1987. "I trusted the research system." The Scientist 1(December 14):11-12.
Steelman, J. R. 1947. Science and Public Policy: Administration of Research, a Report to the
President, President's Scientific Research Board. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Sterling, T. D. and J. J. Weinkam. 1990. "Sharing scientific data." Communications of the ACM 33
(8):112-19.
Stewart, W. and N. Feder. 1987. "The integrity of the scientific literature." Nature 325(January
15):207-214.
St. James-Roberts, I. 1976a. "Are researchers trustworthy?" New Scientist 72(September 2):481-83.
St. James-Roberts, I. 1976b. "Cheating in science." New Scientist 72(November 25):466-69.
Storer, N. 1966. The Social System of Science. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

176

Stossel, T. P. 1985. "Reviewer status and review quality: experience of the Journal of Clinical
Investigation." New England Journal of Medicine 312(March 7):658-59.
Stromholm, S. 1990. "Hero or villain? Prometheus reconsidered." Science and Public Policy 17
(April):69-72.
Summerlin Peer Review Committee. 1974. Report. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New
York, May 17.
Sun, M. 1989. "Peer review comes under peer review." Science 244(May 26) :910-12.
Sundstrom, E., K. P. De Meuse, and D. Futrell. 1990. "Work teams: applications and effectiveness."
American Psychologist 45(2):120-33.
Sutton, J. R. 1984. "Organizational autonomy and professional norms in science: a case study of the
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory." Social Studies of Science 14:197-224.
Swan, N. 1989. "Preventing and dealing with scientific fraud in Australia." Medical Journal of
Australia 150(February 20):169-70.
Swazey, J. P. and S. R. Scher (eds.). 1981. Whistleblowing in Biomedical Research: Policies and
Procedures for Responding to Reports of Misconduct . President's Commission for the Study
of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Swazey, J. P., K. S. Louis, and M. S. Anderson. 1989. "University policies and ethical issues in
research and graduate education: highlights of the CGS deans' survey." CGS Communicator
22(March):1-3, 7-8.
Szilagyi, D. E. 1984. "The elusive target: truth in scientific reporting." Journal of Vascular Surgery
(March):243-53.
Tangney, J. P. 1987. "Fraud will out--or will it?" New Scientist (August 6):62-63.
Thompson, J. J., B. S. Dreben, E. Holtzman, and R. B. Kreiser. 1983. "Corporate funding of academic
research." Academe (November-December):18a-23a.
Tranoy, K. E. 1983. "Is there a universal research ethic?" Pp. 3-12 in Research Ethics. Alan R. Liss,
Inc., New York.
Traweek, S. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Tribe, L. H. 1988. American Constitutional Law. Second edition. Foundation Press, Mineola, N.Y.
Tuckman, H., S. Coyle, and Y. Bae. 1990. On Time to the Doctorate: A Study of the Lengthening
Time to Completion for Doctorates in Science and Engineering, Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Turner, S. P. 1990. "Forms of patronage." Pp. 185-211 in Theories of Science in Society, Cozzens,
S.E. and T. F. Gieryn (eds.). Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind.
University of Chicago. 1986. "Report of the Committee on Academic Fraud." Minerva 24(SummerAutumn):347-358.
University of Maryland at Baltimore. 1989. Policies and Procedures Related to Allegations or Other
Evidence of Academic Misconduct. University of Maryland, Baltimore, December 22.
University of Michigan Medical School. 1989. Guidelines for the Responsible Conduct of Research,
Medical School Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Responsible Conduct of
Research. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
U.S. Congress. 1981a. Fraud in Biomedical Research. House of Representatives, Committee on
Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight. 97th Cong., 1st
sess., March 31 and April 1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1981b. National Cancer Institute Contracting and Procurement Procedures, 1981.
Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 97th Cong., 1st sess., June 2. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

U.S. Congress. 1986. Science and the Regulatory Environment. House of Representatives, Committee
on Science and Technology, Task Force on Science Policy. 99th Cong., 2nd sess., February
26 and March 5-6. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1988a. Scientific Fraud and Misconduct and the Federal Response. House of
Representatives, Committee on Governmental Operations, Subcommittee on Human
Resources and Intergovernmental Relations. 100th Cong., 2nd sess., April 11. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1988b. Scientific Fraud and Misconduct in the National Institutes of Health
Biomedical Grant Programs. Hearings. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy
and Commerce. April 12.
U.S. Congress. 1988c. Federal Response to Misconduct in Science: Are Conflicts of Interest
Hazardous to Our Health? House of Representatives, Committee on Government
Operations, Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations. 100th
Cong., 2nd sess., September 29. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1989a. Fraud in NIH Grant Programs. House of Representatives, Committee on
Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 100th Cong., 2nd
sess., April 12. Serial No. 100-189. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1989b. Scientific Fraud. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 101st Cong., 1st sess., May 4,
9. Serial No. 101-64. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1989c. Is Science for Sale? Conflicts of Interest vs. the Public Interest. House of
Representatives, Committee on Governmental Operations, Subcommittee on Human
Resources and Intergovernmental Relations. 101st Cong., 1st sess., June 13. Serial No.
20-969. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1990a. Are Scientific Misconduct and Conflicts of Interest Hazardous to Our Health?
H. Rpt. 101-688. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations. 101st
Cong., 2nd sess. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1990b. Maintaining the Integrity of Scientific Research . House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight. 101st Cong., 1st sess., June 28. No. 73. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress. 1990c. Scientific Fraud, Part 2. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 101st Cong., 1st sess., April 30
and May 14. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Van Alstyne, W. 1970. "The constitutional rights of teachers and professors." Duke Law Journal
(5):841-79.
Vanderpool, H. Y. and G. B. Weiss. 1987. "False data and the therapeutic misconception: two urgent
problems in research ethics." Hastings Center Report (April):16-19.
Warwick, D. P. and T. F. Pettigrew. 1983. "Toward ethical guidelines for policy research." Hastings
Center Report (February):9-16.
Washington University Senate Council. 1990. Research Integrity Policy for Washington University.
Washington University, St. Louis, April 17.
Weber, M. 1946 [1918]. "Science as a vocation." Pp. 129-56 in From Max Weber: Essays in
sociology, Gerth, H. and C. W. Mills (eds.). Oxford University Press, New York.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

178

Weil, V. 1988. "Policy incentives and constraints on scientific and technical information." Science,
Technology, and Human Values 13(1&2):17-26.
Weil, V. and J. W. Snapper. 1989. Owning Scientific and Technical Information. Rutgers University
Press, New Brunswick, N.J.
Weinstein, D. 1979. "Fraud in science." Social Science Quarterly 59(4):639-52.
Weinstein, D. 1981. "Scientific fraud and scientific ethics." Connecticut Medicine 45
(October):655-58.
Weiss, T. 1991a. "NIH grants research integrity amendments of 1991." Congressional Record (April
17):E1288-89.
Weiss, T. 1991b. "Too many scientists who 'below the whistle' end up losing their jobs and careers."
Chronicle of Higher Education (June 26):A36.
Westin, A. F. 1981. Whistle-blowing! McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wheeler, D. 1991. "U.S. has barred grants to 6 scientists in past 2 years." Chronicle of Higher
Education (July 3).
Williams, J. S. Forthcoming. "The importance of preserving scientific data." In Archival Management
of Research Resources in the Health Field, McCall, N. and L. A. Mix (eds.). Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, Md.
Wilshire, B. 1990. "Professionalism as purification ritual." Journal of Higher Education 61(May/June
1990):280-93.
Wilson, E. Bright. 1952. An Introduction to. Scientific Research. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wilson, J. T. 1983. Academic Science, Higher Education, and the Federal Government, 1950-1983.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wolins, L. 1962. "Responsibility for raw data." American Psychologist 17:657-58.
Woolf, P. K. 1981. "Fraud in science: how much, how serious?" Hastings Center Report 11
(October):9-14
Woolf, P. K. 1986. "Pressure to publish and fraud in science." Annals of Internal Medicine 104
(2):254-56.
Woolf, P. K. 1988a. "Deception in scientific research." Jurimetrics Journal 29(Fall):67-95.
Woolf, P. K. 1988b. "Science needs vigilance not vigilantes." Journal of the American Medical
Association 260(October 7):1939-40.
Yamamoto, K. R. 1982. "Faculty members as corporate officers: does cost outweigh benefit?" Pp.
195-201 in From Genetic Engineering to Biotechnology--The Critical Transition, Whelan,
W. J. and S. Black (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Yankauer, A. 1989. "Editor's annual report--manuscript requirements." American Journal of Public
Health 79(April):413-14.
Yolles, B. J.,J. C. Connors, and S. Grufferman. 1986. "Sounding Board: Obtaining access to data from
government-sponsored medical research." New England Journal of Medicine 315(December
25):1669-72.
Zastrow, C. H. 1970. "Cheating among college graduate students." Journal of Educational Research
64(December):157-60.
Zen, E-an. 1988. "Abuse of co-authorship: its implications for young scientists and the role of
journals." Geology 16:292.
Ziman, J. 1978. Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Ziman, J. 1990. "Research as a career." Pp. 345-59 in The Research System in Transition, Cozzens, S.
E., P. Healey, A. Rip, and J. Ziman (eds.). NATO Advanced Studies Institute Series, Series
D, Volume 57. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Zuckerman, H. 1968. "Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers: a study of social
symbolism and its ambiguity." American Journal of Sociology 74(November 3):276-291.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

Zuckerman, Harriet. 1977. "Deviant behavior and social control in science." Pp. 87-138 in Deviance
and Social Change. Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Zuckerman, H. 1984. "Norms and deviant behavior in science." Science, Technology, and Human
Values 9(1):7-13.
Zuckerman, H. 1988a. "The sociology of science." Pp. 511-73 in Handbook of Sociology, Smelser, N.
J. (ed.). Sage, Newbury Park, Calif.
Zuckerman, H. A. 1988b. "Introduction: Intellectual property and diverse rights of ownership in
science." Science, Technology, and Human Values 13(1&2):7-16.
Zuckerman, H. and R. K. Merton. 1971. "Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalism, structure
and functions of the referee system." Minerva 9(1):66-100.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MINORITY STATEMENT

180

Minority Statement

Three general concerns preclude our support of the present report. First, its
overall tone presents an unbalanced treatment of scientists and institutions. It fails
to convey the overriding importance of intellectual freedom and trust in a creative
process that has been remarkably successful, and it lacks conviction in assessing
the consequences of inappropriate institutional action or inaction. Second, the
report is equivocal in defining misconduct in science and is inadequate in stating
explicitly the problems inherent in alternative definitions. The "other misconduct"
category introduces ambiguities into the definition, and blurs the boundaries
between misconduct in science and questionable practice. Misconduct in science
requires rigorous adjudicatory machinery and governmental oversight, protection
of whistle-blowers, due process, strong sanctions, and full disclosure. In contrast,
questionable practices raise issues about the value system and culture of science,
and underscore the need for explicit dialogue and education. Governmental
intervention is inappropriate for concerns regarding errors in collecting and
interpreting data, incompetence, sloppiness, selection of data, authorship
practices, multiple publications, and the like. The absence of consensus on the
definition overtly undermines a primary goal of the report to achieve clear
boundaries for the definition of misconduct in science. Third, the report does not
stress sufficiently the importance of establishing a regularized institutional
"response pathway" for allegations of misconduct,

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MINORITY STATEMENT

181

and for considering problems stemming from institutional and individual conflict
of interest. Problematic institutional responses are a common theme in
complicated cases of misconduct in science; yet the crucial need for and intricate
complexities of vigorous, prompt and fair responses to allegations, establishing an
"open door" from bench to Bethesda, are not emphasized. The report is weak in
condemning the ALERT system of the Public Health Service which lists
individuals because they are the subject of an investigation even though they
should be presumed innocent. Finally, conflicts of interest directly related to
research can be more complex, potentially more serious and perhaps more
numerous than the examples of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, and
therefore need to be addressed in this report.
Howard K. Schachman
Keith R. Yamamoto
December 30, 1991

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
MINORITY STATEMENT

182

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
APPENDIXES
183

Appendixes

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
APPENDIXES
184

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
APPENDIXES

185

A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF PANEL MEMBERS

EDWARD E. DAVID, JR., D.Sc., the panel's chairman, is president of
EED, Inc., in Bedminster, New Jersey. Educated as an electrical engineer, Dr.
David previously served as White House Science Adviser (1970-1973) and was
formerly president of Exxon Research and Engineering Company and research
director of Bell Telephone Laboratories.
PHILIP H. ABELSON, Ph.D., is deputy editor, Science, and science
advisor for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Dr. Abelson was the editor of Science for more than 20 years and is a recipient of
the Presidential Medal of Science.
VICTOR R. BAKER, Ph.D., is Regents Professor and Professor of
Geosciences and Planetary Sciences at the University of Arizona.
ALBERT BARBER, Ph.D., is vice chancellor for research at the University
of California, Los Angeles.
MICHAEL BERMAN, J.D., is president of The Duberstein Group, Inc.,
Washington, D.C. He is an attorney and has extensive legislative experience. Mr.
Berman was deputy chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale.
JOHN DEUTCH, Ph.D., is former provost and Institute Professor of
Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Deutch was formerly
undersecretary of the Department of Energy.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
APPENDIXES

186

VAL L. FITCH, Ph.D., is James S. McDonnell Distinguished University

Professor of Physics, Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University. He was
awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1980.
MARYE ANNE FOX, Ph.D., is the M. June and J. Virgil Waggoner
Regents Chair in Chemistry, University of Texas at Austin. She is an associate
editor of the Journal of the American Chemical Society and a member of the
National Science Board.
PETER GALISON, Ph.D., is co-chairman of the History of Science
Program at Stanford University.
BERNARD GERT, Ph.D., is Stone Professor of Intellectual and Moral
Philosophy at Dartmouth College.
IRA J. HIRSH, Ph.D., is Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor
of Psychology and Audiology at Washington University in St. Louis, where he
was formerly dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He was also formerly
director of research at Central Institute for the Deaf.
JENNY L. McFARLAND, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral fellow in the
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
LAURIE E. McNEIL, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of
Physics and Astronomy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
RICHARD A. MESERVE, J.D., Ph.D., is a partner with the firm of
Covington and Burling in Washington, D.C. He previously served as legal
counsel to the President's Science and Technology Adviser (1977-1981).
FRANK M. RICHTER, Ph.D., is professor and chairman of the
Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago.
ARTHUR H. RUBENSTEIN, M.D., is professor and chairman of the
Department of Medicine at the University of Chicago. He chaired the 1989
Institute of Medicine study titled The Responsible Conduct of Research in the
Health Sciences and is a member of the IOM council.
HOWARD K. SCHACHMAN, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of California, Berkeley.
He was formerly president of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology and of the American Society for Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
APPENDIXES

187

HOWARD E. SIMMONS, Jr., Ph.D., is vice president, Central Research

and Development Department, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., in
Wilmington, Delaware.
ROBERT L. SPRAGUE, Ph.D., is a professor in the College of Medicine
and is the director of the Institute for Research on Human Development at the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
SHEILA WIDNALL, D.Sc., is associate provost and Abby Rockefeller
Mauze Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Dr. Widnall was formerly president of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science.
PATRICIA K. WOOLF, Ph.D., has conducted research and written
extensively about misconduct and the sociology of science. She is a lecturer in
the Department of Molecular Biology at Princeton University.
KEITH R. YAMAMOTO, Ph.D., is professor and vice chairman of the
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San
Francisco.
Study Staff
ROSEMARY CHALK, study director, previously directed the 1989
Institute of Medicine study on scientific conduct. She also served as program
head of the AAAS Office of Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from 1976 to
1986.
BARRY D. GOLD, senior staff officer, was previously senior program
associate at the AAAS. He also served as a staff officer for the AAAS-American
Bar Association National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists.
DAVID H. GUSTON, research associate, is a Ph.D. candidate in the
Department of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He
has previously served as a research assistant at the AAAS and at the
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
APPENDIXES

188

B SUBPANELS
Subpanel On The Environment Of The Study
EDWARD E. DAVID, JR. (Chairman), EED, Inc.
ALBERT BARBER, University of California, Los Angeles
MICHAEL BERMAN, The Duberstein Group, Inc.
JOHN DEUTCH, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
BERNARD GERT, Dartmouth College
Staff
Barry Gold, Senior Staff Officer
Subpanel On Research Practices And Standards
IRA J. HIRSH (Chairman), Washington University
PHILIP H. ABELSON, American Association for the Advancement of
Science
VICTOR R. BAKER, University of Arizona
VAL L. FITCH, Princeton University
MARYE ANNE FOX, University of Texas at Austin
PETER GALISON, Stanford University
JENNY L. McFARLAND, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
LAURIE E. McNEIL, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
APPENDIXES

189

RICHARD A. MESERVE, Covington and Burling

KEITH R. YAMAMOTO, University of California, San Francisco
Staff
David H. Guston, Research Assistant
Subpanel On Misconduct And Integrity In Science
HOWARD E. SIMMONS, JR. (Chairman), E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Inc.
FRANK M. RICHTER, University of Chicago
ARTHUR H. RUBENSTEIN, University of Chicago
HOWARD K. SCHACHMAN, University of California, Berkeley
ROBERT L. SPRAGUE, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
SHEILA WIDNALL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
PATRICIA K. WOOLF, Princeton University
Staff
Rosemary Chalk, Study Director

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
APPENDIXES
190

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INDEX

191

Index

A
Academic institutions. See also Research
enterprise;
Research institutions cooperation
between industry and, 76-77
data storage in, 50
ethics education by, 132-133
and faculty participation in investigations, 119-120
misconduct allegations in, 9-10, 91-93,
98-99.
See also Misconduct allegations
policies and procedures instituted by,
43-44, 73, 77, 101, 104, 134
research traditions in, 67-68
and role of government agencies in handling misconduct allegations, 112-115
scientists employed by, 71
Acadia Institute Survey, 91-93
Accountability
balance of intellectual freedom and,
11-12, 123
panel conclusions regarding, 123-124
in research enterprise, 74
of scientists, 2
Adjudication
discussion of, 107
responsibility for, 111
Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research, 85
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration (ADAMHA)
biomedical training programs funded
by, 129
misconduct-in-science regulations applicable to research sponsored by, 85
ALERT system (PHS), 110-111
Allegations. See Misconduct allegations
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 99
American Chemical Society, 55
Association of American Medical Colleges, 99

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INDEX

192

Association of American Universities, 99

Australia, 88
Authors
honorary, 52-53
number per article, 54, 71
order of, 53
Authorship
inappropriate, 86-87
plagiarism and issues of, 54-55
recognition of contributions, 53-54
requirements of, 52, 140
specialized, 53
B
Bias
appropriate and inappropriate sources
of, 46
in peer review situations, 141
Biomedical training programs, 129
Bush report, 68
C
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, 152
Causes of misconduct, 30-31
Centers for Disease Control, 85
Clinical research
academic-industry collaboration in,
76-77
unique nature of, 31
Code of ethics. See also Ethics
adopted by individual disciplines, 39, 42
unwritten, 36-37
Collaborative research, 72
Committee on Science, Engineering, and
Public Policy (COSEPUP), 3, 22
Communication/publication issues
authorship and, 52-55
editors and, 55-56
overview of, 51-52
peer review and, 56
Computer technology. See Information
technology
Confidentiality, 107
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), 91, 92
Courts, role in misconduct allegations and
investigations, 115-116

Definitions, 5-7, 27-30

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 84, 85, 108
regulations and procedures regarding
misconduct allegations, 87-88, 99,
108-111
Disciplinary measures, 103-104
Disciplines, role of, 41-42
Disclosure, 78-79
Doctorates
increase in number of, 71
variations in length of training for, 61
Due process requirements Constitutional
requirements, 116-117
differences in university and government approach to, 113-114
elements of, 117-118
resolving misconduct cases and, 116-118
E
Edsall, John T., 131
Educational programs
to foster responsible research practices,
129
incorporation of ethics into, 130-133
panel recommendations regarding, 13,
146-147
Engineers, 71
Error correction, 18, 56-59

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INDEX

193

Ethics. See also Code of ethics

approaches to teaching, 131-133
benefits of teaching, 130-131
Evidentiary standards, 113
F
Fabrication, 5, 27
False accusations, 121.
See also Whistle-blowers
False Claims Act, 84
Falsification, 5, 27
Federal research funds
increases in, 16, 33, 68, 71
standards for recipients of, 85
Feynman, Richard, 37
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 85
Foreign students, 61
Fraud
first public examination of, 98
legal definition of, 25, 34
legislative requirement, 99
Freedom of Information Act, 151
G
Germany, 88
Gift authorship, 52-53
Gore, Albert, 98
Government agencies. See also individual
agencies
handling of misconduct allegations by,
112-115
panel recommendations for, 14-15,
147-150
policies and procedures to handle misconduct allegations, 9-10, 20 ,
100-101, 108-112
regulations of, 44-45, 49, 98-101
sanctions imposed by, 118-119
statistics on misconduct provided by,
20, 81-84
Great Britain, 88
Guidelines for conduct of research.
See Research conduct guidelines

Harvard Medical School, 55, 135

Health Research Extension Act of 1985
(P.L. 100-504), 108
Honor in Science (Sigma Xi), 54, 131,
134, 137
Honorary authors, 52-53
Huth, E., 71
Hypotheses
explanation of, 38
formulation and testing of, 58
I
India, 88
Industry
cooperation between academic institutions and, 76-77
role in interdisciplinary research, 73
Information technology, 51
Inquiries. See Misconduct inquiries
Inspector General Act Amendments of
1988, 111
Institutions. See Academic institutions;
Research institutions
Integrity of research process
definition of, 4, 17, 24-25
methods of ensuring, 20-22
panel recommendations regarding, 13,
145-147
safeguards to, 18
Integrity of science, 25
Intellectual freedom
balance of accountability and, 11-12, 123
panel conclusions regarding, 123-124
Intellectual property rights disputes over,
19

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INDEX

194

journal submission dates and, 52

National Science Foundation policy
regarding, 44
policies of academic institutions regarding, 73, 77
Intent to deceive, 26
Interdisciplinary research organization of,
73
training workshops dealing with responsible research practices in, 133
International studies of misconduct in science, 88
Investigations. See Misconduct investigations
J
Johns Hopkins University Medical
School, 135
Journals. See Scientific journals
L
Laboratories. See Research laboratories
Legislation, 21, 84, 99, 111, 151
M
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 68
Materials transfer agreements, 49
Mentorship
explanation of, 59
negative aspects of, 60-62, 146
positive aspects of, 59-60
responsible research practices and,
141-142
selection of trainees and, 62
Merton, Robert, 41
Misconduct allegations
accountability and intellectual freedom
issues and, 11-12
consequences of inquiries and investigations due to, 118-119
due process requirements and, 116-118
experiences of institutional officials
with, 87-88
findings, discussion, and conclusions
regarding, 104-107
issues related to reporting of, 81, 91,
120-121.
See also Whistle-blowers
panel findings and conclusions regarding, 9-12, 95, 105, 107, 111, 121-125

procedural elements to handle, 10-11,

98-104, 148-149
role of courts in, 115-116
special issues in university investigations regarding, 119-120
university-government approaches to
handle, 9-10, 98-107
unresolved issues in approaches to handling, 112-115
Misconduct in science, 2, 4, 80
and access to primary data, 49-50
analyses, surveys, and other reports of,
88-95
causes and cures for, 30-31
consequences of confirmed, 84-85
definitions of, 5, 25-28, 112-113, 147-148
demarcation between questionable
research practices and, 29
government statistics on, 81-84
incidence of, 2, 9, 19-20, 80-95
international studies regarding, 88
panel recommendations regarding,
147-150
problems for those who report.
See also Whistle-blowers
reasons for taking action regarding, 31-33
reports from local institutional officials
regarding, 87-88
sources of detection for, 90-92
underreporting, possibility of, 9, 20, 81,
95

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INDEX

195

variations in definitions of, 85-87,

112-113, 124, 148
Misconduct inquiries
consequences of, 118-119
explanation of, 100
procedures for, 102
Misconduct investigations
access of scientists to reports of, 87
as distinguished from adjudication, 107
consequences of, 118-119
explanation of, 100
faculty participation in, 119-120
leaking of draft reports of, 114
procedure for, 102-104
quality and timeliness of, 114-115
Misconduct (other)
associated with misconduct in science,
29-30
definition of, 6-7, 26, 29, 86
panel recommendations regarding, 18,
149
Mulkay, Michael, 41
N
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), 152
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 152
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
awards supported annually by, 20
biomedical training programs funded
by, 129
guidelines for conduct of research, 135
misconduct-in-science regulations applicable to, 85
National Library of Medicine, 55
National Science Foundation (NSF)
data-sharing policy of, 44-45
definitions used by, 27, 86
regulations and procedures to address
misconduct allegations, 21, 88, 100,
108, 111-112
review of misconduct allegations by,
82-83, 103
sanctions imposed by, 119
New England Journal of Medicine, 55-56
Noncontributing authors, 52-53
Norms of science, 40-41

also NSF OIG, 82, 101, 111-112

report on incidence of misconduct, 94
report on institutional policies and procedures for addressing misconduct, 99
role in handling misconduct allegations,
82-83, 110
Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), 147-148
Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI)
(DHHS), 84, 90
procedures regarding leaks, 114
regulations and procedures to address
misconduct allegations, 108, 109
Office of Scientific Integrity Review
(OSIR) (DHHS)
description of investigatory process by,
103
first annual report of, 86
misconduct cases studied by, 84, 85,
90-91
regulations and procedures to address
misconduct allegations, 109
requirements for recipients of Public
Health Service research awards, 100
sanctions imposed by, 119
On Being a Scientist (National Academy
of Sciences), 131, 134, 137

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INDEX

196

P
Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the
Conduct of Research
approach, scope, and audience
addressed by, 4, 22-23
charge of, 3, 22
definitions of terms used by, 4-7, 24-30
findings and conclusions of regarding
changing research enterprise, 8-9,
77-79
regarding handling of allegations of
misconduct, 9-12, 95, 105, 107
, 121-125
regarding incidence and significance
of misconduct, 9, 95
regarding need for independent organization to strengthen processes
and procedures, 124-125
regarding PHS ALERT system, 111
regarding responsible research practices, 12-13, 62-64, 137-138, 143
regarding scientists and research institutions, 7-8, 149
recommendations of, 13-16, 145-155
Patents
increases in issuance of, 71
profitability associated with, 48
Peer review
discussion of, 56
effects of increased volume of research
on, 71-72
identification of misconduct by, 91
misuse of privileged information gained
through, 54-55
to penalize competitors, 27
responsible research practices and,
140-141
Plagiarism
confirmed misconduct charges due to, 82
definition of, 5, 27
discussion of, 54-55
Postdoctoral positions
growth rate in, 71
period of training for, 61
Privileged information, 54-55
Professional societies. See Scientific societies
Public Health Service (PHS)
maintenance of ALERT system by,
110-111
misconduct allegations under review by,
84, 103

regulations to address misconduct allegations, 21, 85-86, 99

regulatory definitions used by, 27
requirements for recipients of research
awards from, 100, 129, 148
sanctions imposed by, 119
Publication. See also Authorship; Communication/publication issues; Scientific journals
concerns regarding practices of, 52
overemphasis on, 75-76
responsible research practices and,
139-140
Q
Questionable research practices, 4
See also Research practices
definition of, 5-6, 28-29
demarcation between misconduct in
science and, 29
discouragement of, 142-143
inappropriate authorship as, 86-87
investigated as alleged misconduct in
science, 87
R
Regulatory policies
for academic institutions, 73
accountability and, 74
regarding reports of fraud, 21

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INDEX

197

Remedial actions, 119

Replication of research, 59
Research conduct guidelines
benefits of, 136
disadvantages of, 136-137
panel conclusions regarding, 137-138
panel recommendations regarding, 13,
147
scope and purpose of, 135-136
Research data
acquisition and management of, 47-49,
138-139
and advances in information technology,
51
selective use of, 29
storage of, 49-50
Research data sharing
discussion of, 48-49
government reliance on, 45
National Science Foundation policy on,
44-45
Research directors, 43, 70
Research enterprise
changing circumstances and expectations in, 18-19, 69-70, 77
complexity of collaboration in, 72
factors suggesting possible causes of
misconduct in, 30-31
historical perspective of, 67-69
organization, goals, and management of
groups within, 72-74
panel findings and conclusions regarding, 8-9, 77-79
panel recommendations to strengthen,
13-16, 145-155
regulation and accountability in, 74
reward system in, 74-76
size and scope of contemporary, 71-72
traditions of science in, 17-18
university-industrial cooperation in,
76-77
Research environment
factors contributing to change, 18, 69-70
See also Research enterprise
Research ethics. See Ethics
Research funds. See also Federal research
funds
increases in, 16, 18, 33, 68, 71
misconduct allegations regarding, 29,
92-93
Research groups
dynamics of, 42-43
management of, 72-74
role of research trainee in, 60

size, specialization, and diversity within,

19, 61, 70, 78
Research institutions. See also Academic
institutions; Research enterprise
benefits of information technology
advances to, 51
challenges to, 2-3
educational programs sponsored by, 129
encouragement of responsible research
practices by, 128-129
misconduct allegations handled by,
9-11, 20, 98-104.
See also Misconduct allegations
panel findings and conclusions regarding, 7-8, 63, 78
panel recommendations for, 13-15,
147-150
research guidelines developed by,
39-40, 43-44
role in fostering responsible research
practices of, 129-130, 134-135
social expectations regarding accountability of, 2, 21
Research laboratories
role of research trainee in, 60
storage of data in, 49-50
Research practices. See also Questionable
research practices; Responsible
research practices
code of ethics guiding, 36-37, 42

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INDEX

198

communication and publication and,

51-56
data handling and, 47-51
error correction and, 18, 56-59
government regulations and policies
affecting, 44-45
guidelines for conduct of. See Research
conduct guidelines
individual scientific disciplines affecting, 41-42
institutional policies affecting, 43-44
panel findings and conclusions regarding, 12-13, 62-64
panel recommendations regarding,
13-15, 145-147
during periods of new conceptual
insights, 39
role of individual scientists and groups
in, 42-43
scientific norms affecting, 40-41, 48
social attitudes and expectations affecting, 45-46
training and mentorship and, 59-62
Research process
integrity of. See Integrity of research
process
replication and reconfirmation of results
as element of, 38, 59
steps in, 17-18
Research proposals, 71
Research trainees. See also Mentorship;
Training programs
in large research laboratories, 61
relationship between mentors and, 59-60
responsible research practices and,
141-142
selection of mentors by, 62
Responsible research practices. See also
Research practices
ethics education of scientists as method
to encourage, 130-133
guidelines for. See Research conduct
guidelines
institutional efforts to encourage,
128-129
panel findings and conclusions regarding, 12-13, 62-64, 137-138, 143
panel recommendations for, 13-16,
145-155
subjects to consider to encourage,
138-142
Reward system, 74-76

S
Sapp, Jan, 39
Science. See also Misconduct in science
general norms of, 40-41, 48
integrity of, 25
nature of, 38-39
traditions of, 17-18
Scientific disciplines
guiding principles of specific, 36
research practices in various, 37, 39,
41-42
Scientific evidence
operation of judgment in selecting, 39
principles of acceptable, 37
Scientific Freedom and Responsibility
(Edsall), 131
Scientific Integrity Advisory Board
(SIAB), 15, 124-125, 152-156
organization and structure of, 152-153
panel comments regarding, 153-154
panel recommendation for, 15, 150
specific tasks of, 150-151
termination of, 153
Scientific journals
authorship guidelines for, 52, 55-56.
See also Authorship
data storage issues and, 49-50
editors of, 55-56
number of articles published in, 71
panel recommendations for, 16, 155
proliferation of, 71

Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html
INDEX

199

Scientific method, 36, 38

Scientific reports
correction of errors, 56-57
detection of errors in, 18, 57-58
Scientific societies
ethics publications of, 131
panel recommendations for, 16, 155
standards-setting activities of, 42
Scientific theories, 38
Scientists
academic rank and misconduct of, 90, 91
basic principles guiding, 36-37, 42-43
challenges to, 2-3
concerns regarding definition of misconduct in science, 26
concerns regarding reports of misconduct, 20
deviant behavior by, 93-94
integration of ethics into education of,
130-133
norms for, 40-41
panel findings and conclusions regarding, 7-8
panel recommendations for, 13-16, 149,
154-155
replication and reconfirmation of results
as responsibility of, 59
social expectations regarding accountability of, 2, 21
Self-regulatory system
evolution of, 62
need for modifications of, 63
questions raised regarding, 18, 20
Sexist behavior, 61
Sharing Research Data (National
Research Council), 48
Sigma Xi
material on ethics published by, 131
misconduct study by, 94
Social attitudes, 40-41
Specialized authorship, 53
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations (House Science and Technology Committee), 98
Supreme Court, U.S., 117

panel recommendations regarding, 13,

146
programs to foster responsible research
practices in, 129, 133
Truthfulness, 17
U
Underreporting, possibility of, 9, 20, 81, 95
Universities. See Academic institutions
University of Maryland, 134
University of Michigan Medical School,
135
V
Vandalism, 149
W
Whistle-blower Protection Act of 1989, 123
Whistle-blowers
false accusations by, 121
panel's recommendation on, 16, 156-157
professional and economic deterrents
for, 81, 91
protections for, 122-123
role of, 120-121
Woolf, Patricia, 89-90
Z
Ziman, John, 41

T
Technology transfer programs, 76
Trainees. See Mentorship; Research
trainees
Training programs. See also Mentorship;
Research trainees

Being A Scientist
100% (3)
Being A Scientist
83 pages
Bookshelf NBK218704
No ratings yet
Bookshelf NBK218704
436 pages
NationalAcademiesofS 2016 GeneDrivesontheHorizonAdvancingScienceNa
No ratings yet
NationalAcademiesofS 2016 GeneDrivesontheHorizonAdvancingScienceNa
231 pages
Jri Si Nas Gene Drives Horizon Full 2016
No ratings yet
Jri Si Nas Gene Drives Horizon Full 2016
231 pages
Addressing Foodborne Threats To Health
100% (1)
Addressing Foodborne Threats To Health
305 pages
Understanding & Addressing Misinformation About Science (2025)
No ratings yet
Understanding & Addressing Misinformation About Science (2025)
357 pages
Engineering, And Public Policy Committee on Science, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine - On Being a Scientist_ a Guide to Responsible Conduct in Rese
No ratings yet
Engineering, And Public Policy Committee on Science, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine - On Being a Scientist_ a Guide to Responsible Conduct in Rese
92 pages
Engineering, And Public Policy Committee on Science, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine - On Being a Scientist_ a Guide to Responsible Conduct in Rese (1)
No ratings yet
Engineering, And Public Policy Committee on Science, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine - On Being a Scientist_ a Guide to Responsible Conduct in Rese (1)
91 pages
Selling The Nation S Helium Reserve 1st Edition National Research Council Instant Download
100% (4)
Selling The Nation S Helium Reserve 1st Edition National Research Council Instant Download
61 pages
Leighanne Olsen, Dara Aisner, and J. Michael Mcginnis, Editors, Roundtable On Evidence-Based Medicine
No ratings yet
Leighanne Olsen, Dara Aisner, and J. Michael Mcginnis, Editors, Roundtable On Evidence-Based Medicine
375 pages
The National Academies Press: Implications of Nanotechnology For Environmental Health Research (2005)
100% (1)
The National Academies Press: Implications of Nanotechnology For Environmental Health Research (2005)
71 pages
Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants
No ratings yet
Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants
127 pages
On Being A Scientist - A Guide To Responsible Conduct in Research - Third Edition
No ratings yet
On Being A Scientist - A Guide To Responsible Conduct in Research - Third Edition
83 pages
Science at The Frontier
No ratings yet
Science at The Frontier
286 pages
Researcher Ethics
No ratings yet
Researcher Ethics
101 pages
Advancing Quality Improvement Research: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary (2007)
No ratings yet
Advancing Quality Improvement Research: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary (2007)
61 pages
Elbert W. Friday, JR., Rapporteur, National Research Council
No ratings yet
Elbert W. Friday, JR., Rapporteur, National Research Council
69 pages
Responsible Science: Ensuring The Integrity of The Research Process: Volume I (1992)
No ratings yet
Responsible Science: Ensuring The Integrity of The Research Process: Volume I (1992)
224 pages
Communicating To Advance The Public - S Health
No ratings yet
Communicating To Advance The Public - S Health
97 pages
Jurnal Internasional
No ratings yet
Jurnal Internasional
48 pages
Committee On Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies To Predictive Toxicology and Risk Assessment, National Research Council - Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies To Predictive Toxicology An
No ratings yet
Committee On Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies To Predictive Toxicology and Risk Assessment, National Research Council - Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies To Predictive Toxicology An
301 pages
Science Policy and The Value Free Ideal 1st Edition Heather E. Douglas Download
No ratings yet
Science Policy and The Value Free Ideal 1st Edition Heather E. Douglas Download
52 pages
Research Integrity External
No ratings yet
Research Integrity External
30 pages
U.S. and International Perspectives On Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy: Report of A Workshop
No ratings yet
U.S. and International Perspectives On Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy: Report of A Workshop
61 pages
Toluene Final v17 Jun 2014
No ratings yet
Toluene Final v17 Jun 2014
168 pages
Toxins Out of Our Air, Water, and Food.: To The American People
No ratings yet
Toxins Out of Our Air, Water, and Food.: To The American People
75 pages
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Scientific and Technical Advice For The U.S. Congress
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Scientific and Technical Advice For The U.S. Congress
360 pages
Reconstructing Research Integrity Beyond Denial Direct Ebook Download
100% (13)
Reconstructing Research Integrity Beyond Denial Direct Ebook Download
15 pages
Health Systems Science Education: Proceedings of A Workshop (2024)
No ratings yet
Health Systems Science Education: Proceedings of A Workshop (2024)
91 pages
Support for Forensic Science Research Improving the Scientific Role of the National Institute of Justice 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences - Download the complete ebook in PDF format and read freely
No ratings yet
Support for Forensic Science Research Improving the Scientific Role of the National Institute of Justice 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences - Download the complete ebook in PDF format and read freely
78 pages
Climate Science in The Political Arena: Hearing
No ratings yet
Climate Science in The Political Arena: Hearing
166 pages
Validation of Toxicogenomic Technologies A Workshop Summary 1st Edition Committee On Validation of Toxicogenomic Technologies: A Focus On Chemical Classification Strategies Instant Download
No ratings yet
Validation of Toxicogenomic Technologies A Workshop Summary 1st Edition Committee On Validation of Toxicogenomic Technologies: A Focus On Chemical Classification Strategies Instant Download
52 pages
Lesson Plan GNM I Year Psychology Frustration PDF Free
No ratings yet
Lesson Plan GNM I Year Psychology Frustration PDF Free
8 pages
ISBN: 0-309-13649-0, Pages
No ratings yet
ISBN: 0-309-13649-0, Pages
35 pages
Careers in Science and Engineering A Student Planning Guide To Grad School and Beyond - Cropped
No ratings yet
Careers in Science and Engineering A Student Planning Guide To Grad School and Beyond - Cropped
159 pages
Getting To Good Research Integrity in The Biomedical Sciences Free Ebook Download
100% (20)
Getting To Good Research Integrity in The Biomedical Sciences Free Ebook Download
16 pages
The National Academies Press: Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda
No ratings yet
The National Academies Press: Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda
153 pages
Advancing The Science of Climate Change - 2010 - National Research Council
No ratings yet
Advancing The Science of Climate Change - 2010 - National Research Council
527 pages
The 1st Annual Crossing The Quality Chasm Summit Institute of Medicine
No ratings yet
The 1st Annual Crossing The Quality Chasm Summit Institute of Medicine
84 pages
Power: Nature Dimension Types and Consequences
No ratings yet
Power: Nature Dimension Types and Consequences
13 pages
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - The Science of Science and Innovation Policy
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - The Science of Science and Innovation Policy
73 pages
Protecting The Integrity of Government Science - January 2022
No ratings yet
Protecting The Integrity of Government Science - January 2022
67 pages
Umendo The True Story PDF
No ratings yet
Umendo The True Story PDF
147 pages
PDEV 111 Answer 2nd Quarter
50% (2)
PDEV 111 Answer 2nd Quarter
30 pages
James P. Gould and Andrew C. Lemer, Editors Committee For An Infrastructure Technology Research Agenda, National Research Council
No ratings yet
James P. Gould and Andrew C. Lemer, Editors Committee For An Infrastructure Technology Research Agenda, National Research Council
144 pages
The National Academies Press: For The Public's Health: Revitalizing Law and Policy To Meet New Challenges (2011)
No ratings yet
The National Academies Press: For The Public's Health: Revitalizing Law and Policy To Meet New Challenges (2011)
141 pages
Lesson 11 Speech According To Purpose and Delivery
100% (1)
Lesson 11 Speech According To Purpose and Delivery
26 pages
The Responsible Conduct of Research
No ratings yet
The Responsible Conduct of Research
177 pages
GE's Two-Decade Transformational & Jack Welch's Leadership
100% (2)
GE's Two-Decade Transformational & Jack Welch's Leadership
64 pages
Action Research
0% (1)
Action Research
21 pages
Bush Distorting Science Summary
No ratings yet
Bush Distorting Science Summary
3 pages
Science 2012 Nath 863 Responsible
No ratings yet
Science 2012 Nath 863 Responsible
1 page
Lotti Principio Precauzione
No ratings yet
Lotti Principio Precauzione
13 pages
Nonmedication Treatments For ADHD in Adults
100% (10)
Nonmedication Treatments For ADHD in Adults
168 pages
Ba24 Sob-1111 Introduction To Sociology
No ratings yet
Ba24 Sob-1111 Introduction To Sociology
8 pages
Age Basic Conflict Basic Strength/ Virtue Core Pathology Important Event Outcome
No ratings yet
Age Basic Conflict Basic Strength/ Virtue Core Pathology Important Event Outcome
1 page
Proposal For Fitness Instructor Job
50% (2)
Proposal For Fitness Instructor Job
2 pages
School Profile
No ratings yet
School Profile
27 pages
9123 Đề thi thử tuyển sinh lớp 10 THPT lần 2
No ratings yet
9123 Đề thi thử tuyển sinh lớp 10 THPT lần 2
6 pages
MODULE 1 - An Introduction To Culture and Psychology
No ratings yet
MODULE 1 - An Introduction To Culture and Psychology
7 pages
Strategies To Extend Your Answer
No ratings yet
Strategies To Extend Your Answer
3 pages
Tschanz 1998
No ratings yet
Tschanz 1998
8 pages
Teams and Belbin 2
No ratings yet
Teams and Belbin 2
6 pages
Unit 14
No ratings yet
Unit 14
24 pages
k2 Case Study Guide - Nathan Janes
No ratings yet
k2 Case Study Guide - Nathan Janes
6 pages
Hargrove Dayna Resume
No ratings yet
Hargrove Dayna Resume
9 pages
The War Within
No ratings yet
The War Within
6 pages
081eng-Hw-W17 - (Thursday Homework)
No ratings yet
081eng-Hw-W17 - (Thursday Homework)
2 pages
Module 5 - Theories and Approaches in Art Criticism
No ratings yet
Module 5 - Theories and Approaches in Art Criticism
3 pages
Things That Fly Discussion Questions
No ratings yet
Things That Fly Discussion Questions
1 page
Organizational Culture in Southern Luzon State University As Perceived by The Faculty Assocation of Slsu Inc
No ratings yet
Organizational Culture in Southern Luzon State University As Perceived by The Faculty Assocation of Slsu Inc
11 pages
Vaiata Yarbrough - Introducing Pyschology Worksheet
No ratings yet
Vaiata Yarbrough - Introducing Pyschology Worksheet
3 pages
No Sleep Print Friendly Lesson Plan
No ratings yet
No Sleep Print Friendly Lesson Plan
3 pages
Andrea Macmeans: University of Arizona, College of Education, Tucson, Az
No ratings yet
Andrea Macmeans: University of Arizona, College of Education, Tucson, Az
1 page
Alejandra Moreno Acedo - La Lucasta, Dulce Et Decorum Est, From The Song of The Mud
No ratings yet
Alejandra Moreno Acedo - La Lucasta, Dulce Et Decorum Est, From The Song of The Mud
2 pages
Application by Spouse or Relative: Form 1
No ratings yet
Application by Spouse or Relative: Form 1
2 pages
Realizing the Promise and Minimizing the Perils of AI for Science and the Scientific Community
From Everand
Realizing the Promise and Minimizing the Perils of AI for Science and the Scientific Community
Kathleen Hall Jamieson
No ratings yet
Qureshi Manual of Scientific Manuscript Writing for Medical Journals: An Essential Guide for Medical Students, Residents, Fellows, and Junior Faculty
From Everand
Qureshi Manual of Scientific Manuscript Writing for Medical Journals: An Essential Guide for Medical Students, Residents, Fellows, and Junior Faculty
Adnan I. Qureshi MD
5/5 (1)
Ethics and Practice in Science Communication
From Everand
Ethics and Practice in Science Communication
Susanna Priest
4/5 (1)
The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role
From Everand
The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role
Terry L. Cooper
No ratings yet
Gale Researcher Guide for: The Literary Research Process
From Everand
Gale Researcher Guide for: The Literary Research Process
Rouse
4.5/5 (3)
Science Advice and Global Environmental Governance: Expert Institutions and the Implementation of International Environmental Treaties
From Everand
Science Advice and Global Environmental Governance: Expert Institutions and the Implementation of International Environmental Treaties
Pia M. Kohler
No ratings yet
Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words
From Everand
Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words
David Lindsay
5/5 (1)
Social by Nature: The Promise and Peril of Sociogenomics
From Everand
Social by Nature: The Promise and Peril of Sociogenomics
Catherine Bliss
No ratings yet
Research in Information Studies: A Cultural and Social Approach
From Everand
Research in Information Studies: A Cultural and Social Approach
W. Bernard Lukenbill
No ratings yet
The Tree with Many Branches: A Collection of Essays in Computational Phylogenetics
From Everand
The Tree with Many Branches: A Collection of Essays in Computational Phylogenetics
Tommy Rodriguez
No ratings yet
Introduction to Scientific Research: Strategy and Planning
From Everand
Introduction to Scientific Research: Strategy and Planning
Wendi K Wolfram
No ratings yet
Choosing a Research Method, Scientific Inquiry:: Complete Process with Qualitative & Quantitative Design Examples
From Everand
Choosing a Research Method, Scientific Inquiry:: Complete Process with Qualitative & Quantitative Design Examples
Christian S. Yorgure PhD
No ratings yet
Gale Researcher Guide for: Overview of Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology
From Everand
Gale Researcher Guide for: Overview of Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology
Stocks
No ratings yet
Communication and Investigation
From Everand
Communication and Investigation
Miguel D'Addario
No ratings yet