Integrity in Scientific Research Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct (2002) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C: Developments in Misconduct and Integrity Policies Since Publicatoin of the 1992 COSEPUP Report
Appendix C: Developments in Misconduct and Integrity Policies Since Publicatoin of the 1992 COSEPUP Report
Pages 167-177
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 167... ...
Its publication followed years of broader political turmoil over integrity in research and misconduct. In the 10 years since publication of the COSEPUP report there have been significant changes in the science policy system that oversees and promotes integrity in research, particularly in the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
|
From page 168... ...
The judge decided the due process claim, however, in favor of the government, declaring that the invalid procedures did, in fact, provide sufficient due process. Both parties appealed the split decision, and the Seventh Circuit Court vacated the district court's ruling, validating OSI's claim under APA as well as its due process claim.
|
From page 169... ...
in November 1992 issued notice of an interim procedure under which individuals found to have committed misconduct could request an administrative hearing before the Research Integrity Adjudications Panel (RIAP) of the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)
|
From page 170... ...
One of the revisions allowed for a scientist to be included at the request of either DHHS or the respondent (in the original procedure, a scientist would be included at the discretion of the panel chair) , and in 1999 the DHHS Review Group on Research Misconduct and Research Integrity recommended that up to two scientists be allowed to serve on DAB panels (ORI, 1999~.
|
From page 171... ...
The need was threefold: some research-funding agencies still lacked definitions and policies; the definitions at PHS and the National Science Foundation were not the same, leading to the possibility that a researcher jointly funded by the two agencies could be judged by different standards; and courts could conceivably overturn rulings on due process grounds, as the absence of a clear federal statement could be seen as lack of appropriate notice. The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
|
From page 172... ...
RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH In 1996, DHHS Secretary Donna Shalala charged Assistant Secretary of Health Philip Lee to lead a group of DHHS officials in reviewing the department's misconduct procedures and the commission's recommen
|
From page 173... ...
More recently, ORI proposed a policy to require all funded instituhons to provide educational programs in the responsible conduct of research for all research staff associated with PHS funds. Several groups representing institutions of higher education issued a "community comment" in response to the proposal (Hasselmo et al., 2000~.
|
From page 176... ...
Its precision, however, seems to buttress the greater emphasis on due process, particularly the emphasis on notice, that has been evolving as well. ORI is pursuing its charge to prevent misconduct and promote research integrity by maintaining oversight over institutional research misconduct investigations, providing technical assistance to institutions handling allegations, defending research misconduct findings before the DAB, facilitating the creation of RCR programs at institutions, developing a research program on research integrity, responding to retaliation complaints from whiste-blowers, and ensuring regulatory compliance.
|
From page 177... ...
1992. Opportunity for a hearing on Office of Research Integrity scientific misconduct findings.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.