EDITOR'S PAGE
Credibility and fraud In a democracy, credibility is everything. As we have had to learn so traumatically in this nation in recent years, a loss, or even diminution, of credibility can have a devastating effect on even the highest office in the land. Other respected institutions have the same dependence on credibility. Science is no exception. And science, just as other institutions, constantly faces the dilemma of how best to retain hard-won public trust in the face of potentially adverse developments. There are a number of possible paths. One is to deny any problems, not speak of them, and hope they go away. Another is to show concern and to meet problems head-on. As the News Focus article that starts on page 10 of this issue indicates, science is beginning to take the second of these paths in tackling the problem of fraud by its practitioners. But it is doing so with some discomfort. The reasons for this discomfort are not too hard to find. As associate editor Pamela S. Zurer brings out in her story, cases of outright fraud are rare in science. They are very likely even rarer in chemistry. Hence the argument that it is counterproductive to draw attention to the very few aberrations in a highly successful system that has to depend on mutual trust among its practitioners is not without some merit. The fear is that such attention will give comfort to science's critics and increase the possibility of unwarranted outside interference. Another concern is that any publicity unnecessarily adds to the embarrassment and difficulties of essentially blameless parties who may become entangled in cases of questionable conduct in science. But as Zurer points out, it is too late for a low-profile approach. Cases of scientific fraud already have made the headlines. Congress has held hearings on misconduct in science. And the National Science Foundation has drafted guidelines for handling allegations of misconduct that are similar to guidelines the National Institutes of Health already have in place. Scientific and educational societies are responding to the issue, which involves not only outright fraud, but the broader matter of maintaining the highest possible ethical standards throughout the entire process of conducting and reporting science. For instance, the Association of American Universities has issued a report on maintaining the integrity of research. Sigma Xi has published a booklet advising young scientists on ethical issues. The American Association for the Advancement of Science will hold a conference in September on dealing with misconduct in science. The American Chemical Society is also active. The editors of the society's journals have developed a set of ethical guidelines for the publication of research. And a subcommittee of ACS's Committee on Professional Relations is becoming more involved in ethical issues. Scientists have a very proud record of integrity. They are apparently, if somewhat painfully, accepting that the practice of science is not entirely immune from individual misconduct. To their credit they are moving to handle that contingency in a forthright manner. As has repeatedly been shown, the public can accept human frailty, as long as there are reasonable and responsible efforts to contain it. What the public won't tolerate of any institution is a lack of candor. Hence science has nothing to fear, and everything to gain, from what is developing into an open effort both to handle the relatively very few cases of fraud and to encourage the highest ethical standards in everything that scientists do. Michael Heylin Editor
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
April 13, 1987 C&EN
3
