conduct, and for considering problems stemming from institutional and individual conflict of interest. Problematic institutional responses are a common theme in complicated cases of misconduct in science; yet the crucial need for and intricate complexities of vigorous, prompt and fair responses to allegations, establishing an “open door ” from bench to Bethesda, are not emphasized. The report is weak in condemning the ALERT system of the Public Health Service which lists individuals because they are the subject of an investigation even though they should be presumed innocent. Finally, conflicts of interest directly related to research can be more complex, potentially more serious and perhaps more numerous than the examples of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, and therefore need to be addressed in this report.

Howard K. Schachman

Keith R. Yamamoto

December 30, 1991