Research Misconduct Defined

The Clinton administration has proposed a new governmentwide definition of research misconduct within a federal policy that establishes basic guidelines for fair and timely investigations of alleged or suspected infractions. The policy, which was published in the Oct. 14 Federal Register, will apply to all federally funded research regardless of who conducts the research or whether it is conducted in federal, university, or private labs. "This policy provides needed consistency and clear guidance to the research community about the government's interest in the integrity of the research record. We must sustain the public's trust in the methods and results of our public research," said Neal Lane, assistant to the president for science and technology, in a prepared statement. Following a 60-day public comment period and resulting revisions, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) will issue a final policy for agencies to implement. The proposed policy, in addition to being published in the Federal Register, is posted on the NSTC Web site at www.whitehouse.gov/OSTP. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed policy should address remarks to Sybil Francis, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 20502. E-mail submissions (sfrancis@ostp.eop.gov) are accepted, but Francis advises that writers put "Comments on Research Misconduct Policy" in the subject line. To be assured consideration, comments must be postmarked no later than Dec. 13, 1999. As of late October, Francis said, comments were "basically very positive" about the definition and policy. A "town meeting" is scheduled at the National Academies Auditorium in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 17, with the entire day set aside for discussion of the proposed policy. A series of speakers, including Lane of OSTP, National Institutes of Health director Harold E. Varmus, and National Science Foundation general counsel Lawrence Rudolph, are scheduled to make brief remarks throughout the morning. Panel discussions, then public comment from the audience, are planned for the afternoon. The day's activities are organized to answer the questions: * What does this mean to federal agencies? * What does this mean to scientists? * What does this mean to research institutions? * What does this mean to scientific reporting and the public? The proposed policy is the result of an extensive consultative process with the major research agencies of the federal government. Under the auspices of the NSTC, development began in April 1996 with the establishment of an NSTC panel (the Research Integrity Panel) of agency representatives from the major research agencies (NIH, NSF, DOE, NASA, USDA, DOD) and OSTP. The panel's recommendations have been under review and revision since they were circulated in January 1997 to all the NSTC agencies. The proposed policy defines the scope of the federal government's interest in the accuracy, the reliability, and the process involved in developing the research record. It will establish a uniform definition of research misconduct across the federal agencies and will install consistent policies for responding to allegations of research misconduct. The policy will apply to all research funded by the federal agencies, including intramural research and research conducted or managed by contractors, universities, or research institutes. Most, if not all, current agency definitions say research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. In addition to defining these terms, the new proposed definition now explicitly includes plagiarism of ideas that occurs during the peer review process. It also defines research misconduct as the falsification of data by inappropriate manipulation of research equipment. Other kinds of misconduct that may occur in the course of research may be addressed through other mechanisms; thus, the "other serious deviations" clause in some agencies' definition becomes unnecessary. Authorship disputes, unless they involve plagiarism, are not covered. Following is the definition of research misconduct included in the proposed policy: ... [F]abrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others' research proposals and manuscripts. Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences of opinion. Research as defined in the policy includes all basic, applied, and demonstration research in all fields of science, engineering, and mathematics. The research record is defined as the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry and includes, for example, physical and electronic laboratory records, research proposals, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles.--Larry Hand (lhand@the-scientist.com)

Research Misconduct Defined

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of