Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

4 MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE - INCIDENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE
Pages 80-97

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 80...
... When measured against the denominator of the number of research awards or research investigators, the range of misconduct-inscience 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~.
From page 81...
... These areas of uncertainty an 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 mis
From page 82...
... 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)
From page 83...
... the pattern and effect of the co-principal investigator's actions constituted a serious deviation from accepted research practices" (NSF, 1990b, p.
From page 84...
... 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~.
From page 85...
... 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
From page 86...
... 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)
From page 87...
... 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.~° Investigatory Reports Reports from Local Institutional Officials 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.
From page 88...
... 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.
From page 89...
... 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)
From page 90...
... 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.
From page 91...
... 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)
From page 92...
... 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.
From page 93...
... , 41 percent (20) had some verified misconduct, according to responses of graduate deans participating in the Acadia Institute survey.
From page 94...
... 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.~4 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.
From page 95...
... 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.
From page 96...
... ; 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.
From page 97...
... 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.


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.