ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Government Briefs

The new NIH regulations that determine how universities should respond to allegations of scientific misconduct (The Scientist, Sept. 4, 1989, page 1) have derailed proposed legislation in Congress. For several months Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) who has explored the issue in numerous hearings involving MIT biologist David Baltimore, has been on the verge of introducing legislation that would force institutions and federal agencies to be more responsive to the issue. But an aide on the House Ener

The Scientist Staff

The new NIH regulations that determine how universities should respond to allegations of scientific misconduct (The Scientist, Sept. 4, 1989, page 1) have derailed proposed legislation in Congress. For several months Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) who has explored the issue in numerous hearings involving MIT biologist David Baltimore, has been on the verge of introducing legislation that would force institutions and federal agencies to be more responsive to the issue. But an aide on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which Dingell chairs, acknowledged last month that the new regulations address most of his concerns.

“They do a pretty good job of reflecting our intentions, with the exception of adequate protection for whistleblowers,” the aide noted. ‘They’ve gotten what they wanted—the chance to police themselves—and we’ll be watching to see how well they do in implementing them.”

At the same time, some of Dingell’s colleagues are worried that...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT