Dingell Hearings On Science Fraud: More Overkill Than Oversight

As chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the NIH, and its subcommittee on oversight and investigations, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has been investigating scientific fraud for over a year. No one questions the subcommittee's legitimate role of investigating fraud and ensuring that public funds are wisely spent. But many object to Dingell's unfair conduct and heavy-handed tactics. The subcommittee seems to have overstepped its mission as a watchdog of public funds. T

Eugene Garfield
Jun 25, 1989
As chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the NIH, and its subcommittee on oversight and investigations, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has been investigating scientific fraud for over a year. No one questions the subcommittee's legitimate role of investigating fraud and ensuring that public funds are wisely spent. But many object to Dingell's unfair conduct and heavy-handed tactics.

The subcommittee seems to have overstepped its mission as a watchdog of public funds. The recent hearings, held in May, leave the impression that Dingell is presiding over a kangaroo court, not a congressional inquiry.

The Dingell subcommittee has focused specifically on a disputed 1986 paper published in Cell (vol. 45, pages 247-259) and coauthored by David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate. Two university reviews and an official NIH investigation of the paper agree that certain data were misinterpreted but not intentionally misrepresented. All agree that the paper is an...

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?