The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
RESPONSIBLE SCIENCE: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process
subpart may result in enforcement action against the institutions, including loss of funding, and may lead to the OSI's conducting its own investigation.
3. The policy, issued jointly by NIH and ADAMHA, became effective July 1, 1990. See National Institutes of Health and Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (1989, 1990).
4. The deadline for the first applications affected by this rule was January 10, 1991. Thus at the time this report is being written, these applications are being reviewed. It will therefore be some months before the initial impact of the new requirement can be reviewed. For the NIH's initial thoughts on compliance, see Department of Health and Human Services (1990b).
5. See, for example, the experience in biomedical ethics reported in Culver et al. (1985).
6. Much of this section draws on a paper prepared for the panel by Nicholas Steneck, “Fostering Responsible Conduct in Science and Engineering Research: Current University Policies and Actions,” which is included in Volume II of this report.
7. Other institutions have not adopted policies on integrity or responsibility, but they have adopted rules of academic discipline. See especially the compendium of student honor codes in Codes and Regulations, published as part of the Princeton Conference on Honor Systems, March 1988.
8. For more information on university policies and the research environment, see, in Volume II of this report, Barbara Mishkin's “Factors Enhancing Acceptance of Federal Regulation of Research” and Nicholas Steneck 's “Fostering Responsible Conduct in Science and Engineering Research: Current University Policies and Actions.” For examples, see policy statements from Harvard University School of Medicine, the University of Michigan, the Johns Hopkins University, and the University of California, San Diego, also in Volume II of this report.
9. See Department of Health and Human Services (1989d). Also see National Science Foundation (1990b) and prior semiannual reports (NSF, 1989c, 1990a).
10. See Harvard University Faculty of Medicine (1988), University of Michigan Medical School (1989), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (1990), and National Institutes of Health (1990).
11. Many researchers and academic administrators report a positive experience with other institutional policies that define appropriate research behavior. This is particularly true with the regulations for research involving human subjects and regulations on laboratory safety.
12. It is useful to review the findings presented in Institute of Medicine (1989a). The IOM report states:
Increasing budgetary and competitive pressures in science demandthat local research institutions and government research funders develop standardsto ensureresponsible research practices to ensure the integrity of the academicresearch enterprise. [emphasis in original]
[The IOM committee expressed] consensus that, although the fundamental values and standards of the research community are appropriate, the expression and implementation of these standards are insufficient to promote responsible research practices in an increasingly large, heterogeneous, and competitive research environment. New and comprehensive guidelines should be developed by the research community to clarify traditional practices, to strengthen the mix of formal policies and informal practices currently in place, and to correct actions that seriously deviate from these standards.
13. The full texts of these institutional guidelines and additional examples are included in Volume II of this report.