:HitM;W,l^il
University, Government Officials Grapple With Scientific Integrity Issues • National Academy of Sciences forum attracts few bench scientists, but 200 others discuss promoting ethical conduct in research Pamela S. Zurer, C&EN Washington • w w r r hat if the National Academy W j ^ / of Sciences (NAS) held a meet• • ing on scientific integrity and nobody came? Anxiety about only a few people showing up at NAS's "Convocation on Scientific Conduct" earlier this month ran so high that the organizers originally scheduled a session to hash over just that question. As it happened, the two-day meeting drew over 200 people to the academy's Washington, D.C., headquarters. And the session on "dealing with the disinterested among us" never made it to the final program. The attendees were clearly interested, engaging in lively discussions on how to promote ethical conduct in research and how to deal fairly with misconduct in science when it occurs. The conference was proposed last February in an unusual statement from NAS, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), in which officers of the three honor societies called on the scientific community to confront the issue of scientific misconduct (C&EN, Feb. 14, page 6). NAS president Bruce M. Alberts said at the time he was concerned about the lack of leadership on the issue. The convocation's goal was one of consciousness raising, according to Gerald Fischbach, professor of neurobiology at Harvard Medical School and chairman of the steering committee. "We want to get more people to feel a common sense of purpose," Fischbach said. Alberts told the meeting: "I want to emphasize the importance of this issue being adopted by the most outstanding
faculty on each campus. It is they who will be recognized by students as setting the tone for attitudes and behavior." Despite that goal, only a few of the big names in scientific research showed up. National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Harold E. Varmus addressed the group, as did National Science Foundation (NSF) director Neal F. Lane. A smattering of academic researchers accepted invitations to present talks or take part in one of two large roundtable discussions. But not many working scientists appeared willing to leave their labs for a few days to ponder their responsibility for maintaining high standards for the scientific enterprise. "It was difficult to get scientists to come to this convocation," Fischbach said. "They see their research time as too precious. We have to get people into the ballpark." For the most part, those who came already had demonstrated interest in the issue of scientific integrity. Among them were university administrators who oversee investigations into allegations of misconduct in science by their faculty;
Alberts: outstanding faculty set tone
government officials from NSFs Office of Inspector General and the Department of Health & Human Services' (HHS) Office of Research Integrity (ORI); professors who teach courses or seminars on ethical issues; philosophers and historians of science; and a few whistleblowers from infamous misconduct cases. In his opening address to the convocation, Alberts said that the old tradition of young scientists simply absorbing ethical research values by interacting with their research advisers was no longer adequate. "Science is a public enterprise and scientists need to devote attention to creating an environment that ensures the public and ourselves that the money we have been given to do our work has been well spent," he said. "It goes without saying that we need to do what we can to discourage scientific misconduct—that is, whenever they occur, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are extremely wasteful and antithetical to scientific progress," Alberts continued. "But I think it's even more important to emphasize those aspects of scientific conduct that affect every scientist every day. "For example, we need to promote the sharing of reagents and other technical resources that facilitate scientific progress And we need to ensure that the information that advances science is sufficiently shared by enhancing the tradition in the scientific community that intellectual property will be respected and will be properly acknowledged in scientific publications." Research institutions need to be proactive in maintaining standards, Alberts said. Every university and research institute needs a safety valve, someone with whom a person bewildered about issues of research integrity can talk matters over. And he emphasized the need for seminars and other events that are designed to teach and allow open discussion of scientific conduct issues. Several university professors described efforts in which they are involved to raise JUNE 27,1994 C&EN 35
GOVERNMENT awareness of research integrity issues among students and, in some cases, faculty. For example, Penny Gilmer, associate professor of chemistry at Florida State University, Tallahassee, and her colleagues have developed a full-semester course for undergraduate and graduate students on science, technology, and society. For several years the University of California, San Francisco, has been offering a short course called "The Practice of Science" to its entire research community, according to Keith Yamamoto, chairman of UCSF's department of biochemistry and biophysics. In open-ended sessions held on Saturdays, students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty members "struggle with issues that face the whole community every day," he said. Courses and seminars that address ethical issues have become more common since 1990, the year NIH began requiring university recipients of its training grants to offer something of that sort to their trainees. At the University of Pittsburgh, instruction in ethics has been part of a course on survival skills for graduate students—including topics such as writing and publishing scientific papers and obtaining grants, said Michael J. Zigmond, professor of behavioral science and psychiatry there. Moreover, in an experiment this year, Pittsburgh is introducing ethical issues into its core courses. "Ethics is so important it should be part of the mainstream," Zigmond said. Although a central theme of the convocation was the role of education in promoting responsible scientific conduct, a substantial part of the discussion turned to misconduct in science. In particular, the scope of the definition of misconduct—a contentious issue for years now (C&EN, April 5, 1993, page 23)— was the focus of some heated exchanges. Howard Schachman, professor of molecular biology at UC Berkeley and NIH ombudsman, expressed his continuing opposition to the inclusion of the phrase "other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community" in the Public Health Services' definition of misconduct in science. NSF includes a similar phrase in its definition. Schachman served on the NAS committee that rejected the controversial phrase in the National Academy of Sciences' 1992 report "Responsible Sci36
JUNE 27, 1994 C&EN
nition. The controversial phrase allows for unexpected cases, the agency's Office of Inspector General argues, while limiting the definition to serious misconduct and making it possible for scientists to interpret what is acceptable practice within their own fields. The current definition allows NSF to protect public funds in, for example, cases of tampering with experiments or stealing ideas during peer review, which might slip through under a definition limited to FF&P. However, ORI—which has jurisdiction over cases involving NIH funding—a year ago was set to delete the serious deviation clause from its definition. ORI had been urged to do so by its advisory committee, which opposed the phrase for the same reasons as the NAS committee. Schachman: narrow misconduct definition Since then, events have occurred that leave ORI's future course on the definience." The report called for limiting ac- tion in doubt. Two decisions in which tions that would trigger federal involve- ORI's findings of misconduct were rement to fabrication, falsification, and versed by the HHS's Departmental Applagiarism (referred to as FF&P). Other peals Board have caused the office to "questionable practices," as the report rethink all of its policies and procecalled what the committee considered dures. And Congress, in the NIH reaulesser offenses, should be left to univer- thorization bill passed last summer, sities to deal with. The "other serious de- abolished ORI's old advisory commitviations" phrase invites the possibility of tee and created a new Commission on scientists being prosecuted for unortho- Scientific Integrity that is charged with dox research methods, the report argues. defining misconduct in science. The commission's first meeting was "I would like to see the misconduct in science definition narrow and tight," June 20. One of its members is C. Kristina Schachman said. "I don't want a vague Gunsalus who is associate vice chancellor for research at the University of Illinois, definition that violates due process." NSF has staunchly stuck by its defi- Urbana-Champaign. Unlike Schachman, Gunsalus—who regularly deals with misconduct aUegations---believes the definition should not be narrowed. "Howard [Schachman] and I differ in perception of how reality works and what's really happening in the world," she said at the NAS meeting. "A narrow definition of misconduct fails the test of common sense. The first time we have a case we say we can do nothing about because it doesn't fall under FF&P, we'll find we will be living under even more rules because Congress will impose them." In closing the conference, Fischbach called for a "ground swell of effort. . . . The role of the academy—if there is to be one—is to gather up from the grass roots some ways to codify guidelines for scientific conduct. We need to identify proper procedures and reduce the incidence of questionable practices be• Gunsalus: narrow definition fails test fore they become malpractice."
