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
On the basis of these assumptions, the panel concluded that actions designed both to foster the integrity of the research process and to respond to misconduct in science are both timely and warranted.
1. The values that characterize science are discussed in National Academy of Sciences (1989).
2. See, for example, further discussion on the ethos of science as described in Chapter 12 in Holton (1988). See also Sigma Xi (1986).
3. For a review of the impact of the contemporary research environment on the ethos of science, see Hoshiko (1991).
4. Government funding for U.S. basic research increased in current dollars from $5.4 billion in FY 1982 to an estimated $12.5 billion in FY 1991. See p. 53 in American Association for the Advancement of Science (1991a).
Academic research investigators are also increasingly supported by nonfederal funds provided by a diverse mix of industrial sponsors, state, and local funds, foundations, and intramural support. For example, the industrial share of academic R&D funding grew from 3.9 percent in 1980 to an estimated 6.6 percent in 1989. Some specialized academic research centers now receive over 20 percent of their funding from industry. See p. 106 in National Science Board (1989).
5. These factors include competitive pressures to publish, increasing competition for funds, secrecy in research performance, and inadequate interaction of young researchers with their peers and mentors. See Institute of Medicine (1989a).
6. See, for example, the following statement of Rep. John Dingell: “We are directing our efforts to seeing to it that NIH is able to function efficiently, well, honorably and competently in the public interest. We expect them to do that with full attention to their responsibilities to the taxpayers, as well as their duties towards the achievement of good science” (U.S. Congress, 1990c, p. 4).
7. As noted in On Being a Scientist (NAS, 1989), Alexander Kohn (1986) presents several case studies of fraud and self-deception from the history of science and medicine. A more popularly written and controversial history of misconduct in science is presented in Broad and Wade (1982).
Individual case histories have been reported in various journals and in newspaper accounts. See, for example, a summary of the controversy surrounding William Summerlin in McBride (1974) and an account of the Long, Soman, Alsabti, Straus, and Burt cases in Broad (1981).
8. See, for example, the cases described by Mazur (1989). See also the discussions in congressional oversight hearings (including U.S. Congress, 1981a; 1988a,b,c).
9. The term “allegation” here refers to complaints of misconduct in science that have resulted in a government case file. An analysis of these allegations is provided in Chapter 4. As of December 1991, about half of these allegations had been resolved.
10. Health Research Extension Act of 1985, P.L. 100-504, 99 Stat. 820 (1985).
11. See, for example, the reports resulting from three workshops sponsored by the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Bar Association (AAAS-ABA, 1989).
12. Some good examples of studies of scientific practice and the social organization of science include Traweek (1988), Hull (1988), Latour (1987), Latour and Woolgar (1979), Hackett and Chubin (1990), and Hackett (1990).
13. It is the panel's hope that the base of knowledge will be augmented by additional