Cases of potential scientific misconduct are rarely routine, and even those that seem to have the potential for a swift conclusion often metamorphose into highly contentious and confused proceedings. A recent case involving Philadelphia's Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) illustrates some of the difficulties institutions face in responding to misconduct allegations-especially with regard to conflicts that arise when institutions must police themselves.


THE FIRST TIME: Fox Chase president Robert Young notes that "This was the first [misconduct case] we've ever dealt with."
In this case, a technician was alleged to have falsified research data in a May 1993 experiment to measure the impact that switching solvents had on the rate of a reaction catalyzed by the enzyme fumarase. A whistleblower raised her concerns to Fox Chase and the Public Health Service's Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in 1994. ORI has oversight in the case because PHS funds were used...

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!
Join for free todayAlready a member?Login Here