Integrity and misconduct in research : report of the Commission on Research Integrity to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the House Committee on Commerce, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

  • United States. Commission on Research Integrity.
Date:
1995
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Integrity and misconduct in research : report of the Commission on Research Integrity to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the House Committee on Commerce, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    15/84 (page 3)
    The principal issues emerging from the debate and addressed by the Commission are the following: © The definition of research misconduct: How narrow or broad should the federal definition be? Specifically, should it include other misconduct beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism? How should questions about intent and honest differences in interpretation of data be addressed? How should the line be drawn between serious and less-serious offenses? & Process: What process is owed to an accused scientist? At what point should a scientist be able to confront his or her accuser in a trial-type setting? How can inherent institutional conflicts of interests and individual biases be mitigated? What form should an appeals process take, and should the evidence at that point be limited to that disclosed by review of the record? What sanctions are necessary to protect the integrity of science, the federal interest in funded research, and the interests of institutions in which research is conducted? ® Federal oversight: What assurances regarding the active presence of fair procedures should the Federal Government require of research institutions to protect the federal investment in research? What office should review institutional assurances and findings, having what powers of investigation? What powers should such an office have to overturn the findings of an institution? What is rightfully in the interest of the Federal Government? @ Protection of whistleblowers: What rights do whistleblowers have? Should retaliation against witnesses be punished, and if so, how? How much federal oversight should there be? o Prevention: What role should the Federal Government have in evaluating educational programs and providing outreach and technical assistance to institutions in efforts to prevent misconduct? How can the scientific community be encouraged toward greater self-assessment and self-governance? Members of the Commission have attempted to formulate answers to the preceding questions in the context of the Commission’s driving concern: What is in the best interest of the public and science?” The Commission reached its unanimous conclusions (presented in Section II) after considering extensive testimony by scores of witnesses representing the spectrum of interested parties, as well as review of a broad sample of the relevant literature. Despite differences in goals and methods, there is considerable consistency between the Commission’s recommendations and those reached in the 1992 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Responsible Science.’ National Academy of Sciences, Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (1992): Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 13-16. NOTE: This report will be cited as NAS report in subsequent references.