Topics

Statement on Responsible Conduct of Research

from Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences
Wm. A. Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering
Kenneth I. Shine, President, Institute of Medicine

Dec. 10, 1999



The research enterprise, like many other human activities, is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. The level of trust that has characterized research and its relationship with society has contributed to a period of unparalleled scientific productivity. But this trust will endure only if the research community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical conduct of research.

On October 14, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published in the Federal Register a proposed new definition of research misconduct, along with suggested procedures for federal research agencies when dealing with the issue. This government-wide policy:

  • defines research misconduct as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results";
  • deems unnecessary the "other serious deviations" clause contained in some agencies' definition;
  • says a finding of research misconduct requires that "there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the scientific community for maintaining the integrity of the research record; the misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or in reckless disregard of accepted practices; and the allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence";
  • relies on the researcher's home institution to respond to allegations of research misconduct, while keeping in mind the fact that federal agencies have ultimate oversight authority for federally funded research; and
  • provides safeguards for the subjects of allegations as well as for informants.

In its 1989 and 1995 (2nd edition) student guide On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, the National Academies -- through their Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) -- describe the ethical foundations of research practices and some of the personal and professional issues that researchers encounter in their work. This guide provides an introduction to the topic that supplements the informal lessons provided by research supervisors and mentors. Hundreds of thousands of copies have been distributed since its publication.

In 1992 the committee issued a report titled Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. In that report, a COSEPUP panel chaired by Edward E. David presented 12 recommendations that defined scientific misconduct and proposed uniform mechanisms by which research institutions and federal funding agencies could deal with specific instances. The panel recommended that such uniform guidelines be adopted by all federal agencies.

After reviewing the proposed policy, we believe that in general, the OSTP proposal as outlined in the Federal Register adopts the approach outlined in the Responsible Science report. In particular, we strongly support the new definition of misconduct and the decision wherein the "other serious deviations clause" contained in some agencies' definition was deemed unnecessary. Establishing a uniform definition of research misconduct across the federal agencies will encourage the development of consistent policies for responding to allegations of misconduct.

In addition, we strongly support the decision that agencies and research institutions are partners who share responsibility for the integrity of the research process. We also support the view that research institutions bear primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of research misconduct, and for the inquiry, investigation, and adjudication of allegations of research misconduct -- keeping in mind the fact that federal agencies have the ultimate oversight authority for federally funded research.

Although we have suggested a number of minor modifications in our letter to OSTP dated November 29, 1999, we believe that the proposed common definition of misconduct and the procedures outlined for handling such allegations are a major step forward. We greatly appreciate the years of effort that have gone into development of this sound policy.