Challenges to the Integrity of Science: The Federal Mandate and Issues for Institutions

By Hansen, Barbara C.; Hansen, Kenneth D. | Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, Spring 1989 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Challenges to the Integrity of Science: The Federal Mandate and Issues for Institutions


Hansen, Barbara C., Hansen, Kenneth D., Journal of the Society of Research Administrators


CHALLENGES TO THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE: THE FEDERAL MANDATE AND ISSUES FOR INSTITUTIONS

Since the publication of Betrayers of the Truth by Broad and Wade, many have given thoughtful consideration to the issues of protecting science against immoral and dishonest scientific practices while retaining appropriate sensitivity to the fragility of the scientific process and our healthy respect for the autonomy and personal responsibility of the individual researcher. Congress, through its passage of laws, higher education associations, through their advisory reports to institutions, and institutions have shown heightened concern both about the occurrence of instances of scientific fraud or misconduct, and about the handling of such cases.

The Federal Mandate

Federal regulation in the form of the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (H.R. 2409) has now specified that "each entity which applies for a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this act for any project or program which involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research, shall submit in or with its application for such grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that such entity 1) has established (in accord with regulations which the Secretary shall prescribe) an administrative process to review reports of scientific fraud in connection with biomedical and behavioral research conducted at or sponsored by such entity; and 2) would report to the Secretary any investigation of alleged scientific fraud which appears substantial."

Report language (June, 1985) further amplified that Congressional expectation indicating that "the Director of NIH should now take appropriate steps to establish a system for standardizing investigative procedures and post-investigatory sanctions in this area." The language goes on to state that "the NIH has a substantial interest in preserving the integrity of the research it supports and, accordingly, should become involved in misconduct inquiries as soon as there is reasonable evidence that an allegation of scientific fraud is substantive." Left to further clarification is the question of what it means for NIH to "become involved in misconduct inquiries" and further interpretation of the clause "reasonable evidence that an allegation of scientific fraud is substantive" (Committee on Energy and Commerce). Later report language from the Committee on Appropriations (June 23, 1988) further amplified legislative concerns by stating "The Committee also expects NIH to strengthen its internal investigative responsibility and fully explore the possibility of requiring the many peer review panels that evaluate research proposals to also, on a random basis, evaluate the results of that NIH-sponsored research with a focus on the broad area of scientific misconduct."

Currently in existence are interim Public Health Service policies and procedures for dealing with possible misconduct in science. Those interim policies list eleven features that should be included in policies and procedures adopted by institutions. Those were published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, Vol. 15, No. 11, July 18, 1986. Since these regulations are not yet final, they are still open for comment, and additional actions are under active consideration.

James B. MacRae, Jr., Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services (April 29, 1988) encouraging further public comment on a number of important questions prior to the issuance of rules which, while aimed at strengthening the public confidence in the integrity of science, might at the same time have a chilling effect on the conduct of the science itself. Among the questions he raised was, "What is an appropriate definition of scientific fraud?

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Challenges to the Integrity of Science: The Federal Mandate and Issues for Institutions
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?