Researcher criminally charged with fraud A well-known researcher in the field of drug therapy for mentally retarded children has been indicted in federal court for falsifying his results. The criminal charges are the first ever to be brought against a scientist accused of misconduct in research, according to federal prosecutors. Stephen E. Breuning, a psychologist who currently is director of psychological services at the Polk Center in Polk, Pa., is charged with lying to a government agency when he submitted fraudulent results in 1983 grant applications to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). He also is charged with obstructing an investigation by NIMH into his actions. Breuning faces three counts of criminal behavior, each of which carries the possibility of a five-year prison sentence and a fine. Breuning has denied any intentional misrepresentation. In his response to NIMH's investigation, he admitted to "some mistakes and errors" but denied ever engaging in misleading research. The fraud and obstruction statutes under which Breuning was indicted are not specifically directed toward scientific misconduct. Certain members of Congress, however, are advocating enactment of legislation specially aimed at the scientific research community (C&EN, April 18, page 6). NIMH referred Breuning's case to the Justice Department for possible prosecution last May. The research agency restrained Breuning from receiving funds for a 10-year period after concluding that he repeatedly engaged in serious scientific misconduct. An NIMH panel found after a lengthy investigation that Breuning had never carried out studies from which he claimed retarded children benefited by treatment with stimulants. Breuning's wide influence in the field of treatment of the mentally retarded is probably what triggered the Justice Department's vigorous response to his alleged fraud, according to observers. "We won't see
a rash of indictments," says Daryl E. Chubin, a sociologist with the Office of Technology Assessment. "This happened because of the clinical applications of Breuning's research. You don't mess around with children in this country and get away with it." "I don't get any personal satisfaction out of seeing somebody in that kind of trouble," says Robert L. Sprague, professor at the Institute for Research on Human Development at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Sprague, a former coworker of Breuning, first brought discrepancies in Breuning's research to light in 1984. "But considering the seriousness of what he did—fraud involving the treatment of tens of thousands of mentally retarded, totally vulnerable people—I don't think society has any other options."
Sprague, however, is frustrated and unhappy at how slow the scientific establishment was to respond to his allegations. He estimates he spent thousands of hours before anyone would give him a serious hearing. "It's far better to address and acknowledge this difficult problem than to act as if it doesn't exist," he says. Chubin points out that Breuning's indictment and Congress' scrutiny send a message to researchers who want to hush up the problem of scientific misconduct. "This takes scientists off the pedestal and puts their misbehavior into a category that's labeled white-collar crime," he says. "Researchers receive public funds and so Congress' interest is legitimate. Punishing wrongdoers for violating the public trust is certainly within its purview." Pamela Zurer, Washington
Senate sets R&D ceilings, funds SSC Reflecting the tight budgetary times, the Senate has approved its version of the fiscal 1989 budget resolution, which sets spending ceilings for federal programs. As in the House version approved last month, the resolution is a mixed bag when it comes to science programs. But unlike the House action, it approved construction funds for the controversial Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). The Senate set funding for budget function 250—general science,
Garn: we must not shortchange future
space, and technology—at $13.4 billion. That's $1 billion more than the House allowed and $2.6 billion more than the Administration had requested for the programs funded under this budget category. However, the Senate budget allows for only an 11% increase for the National Science Foundation, compared to the House's 17% and the Administration's request for a 19% increase in funding. On the other hand, the Senate provided a 25% increase above current funding levels for the Department of Energy's high-energy and nuclear physics programs. That is about double the increase allowed by the House, with most of the difference, $145 million, going to initiate construction of the SSC. The Senate added $2.2 billion to the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's current funding levels. The House budget resolution allowed for a $1.5 billion increase. The $2.6 billion increase above current funding levels for function 250 is about twice the increase set for any other nonmilitary budget function. Thus it was a tempting target for cuts. Sen. Lowell P. Weicker (R.-Conn.), ranking minority member on the Appropriations April 25, 1988 C&EN
5
News of the Week Subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, offered a floor amendment to cut funding for the SSC and transfer the savings to function 550—health services and research. The budget resolution allowed only a 4.6% rise to $13.6 billion for that function, which, among other things, supports all National Institutes of Health research programs. According to Weicker, the $145 million, which would come out of the SSC program for which no site has yet been selected, was needed to restore funding for health professions training, childhood immunization programs, and community health centers that had been cut from the budget. However, Sen. Jake Garn (R.Utah), ranking minority member of the Appropriation Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies, which funds NSF and NASA, although agreeing that Weicker was seeking money for a very worthwhile purpose, argued that "we must not shortchange the future. It is incredibly shortsighted if we do so because of all the economic, health, and scientific benefits that come from function 250." Garn pointed out that although Weicker intended the $145 million to be taken from the SSC, in the budget resolution it is not really possible to talk about specific line items. The money would be subtracted from function 250 period. And when the Appropriations Committee started making its allocations w i t h i n the b u d g e t ceilings, he explained, the money could come out of many different areas. It could come out of NSF or the space shuttle or the space station or even the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. After a fair amount of debate, the Weicker amendment was tabled by a vote of 57 to 38. In other areas the Senate budget resolution calls for a spending freeze for function 270, which supports DOE's other research programs, and a 6.5% reduction in funding for function 350, which supports agricultural research programs, and allows for a slight increase in EPA's operating budget, which may or may not mean an increase for the agency's research programs. 6
April 25, 1988 C&EN
Differences between the House 1974. It is also part of the Peaceful and Senate budget resolutions will Nuclear Explosion Treaty (PNET) of now be ironed out by a conference 1976. Neither treaty has yet been committee. Then the House and Sen- ratified by the U.S. ate appropriations committees will A U.S. government official close begin work on actually allocating to the Geneva talks told C&EN last the funding in each budget func- week: "I have never seen a negotiation. There's still a lot of work to be tion proceed quite this quickly." He done before the fiscal 1989 federal added that "both sides really want to do this experiment." budget assumes its final form. A further incentive for both sides Janice Long, Washington is to have something available for signature by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev when they meet at their upcoming Moscow summit. According to a U.S. source, this could be Two important steps—one official, either a formal protocol for the joint the other nongovernmental—were experiment, something that normaltaken last week on the long road ly would be handled at a lower levtoward the goal of ending nuclear el, or a revised protocol for the PNET. The current PNET protocol weapons testing. would need relatively minor reviIn the first, the U.S. flew into the sion. It already contains some proU.S.S.R. the first load of monitoring equipment for use by U.S. scientists visions for on-site inspection and in a verification test at the Soviet's testing by the other side. major test site near Semipalatinsk The nongovernmental effort is a in Kazakstan. The test will be part joint project of the Soviet Academy of a joint U.S.-Soviet effort to in- of Sciences and the Natural Recrease confidence that the current sources Defense Council, a Wash150-kiloton treaty limit can be mon- ington, D.C.-based group. Under its itored adequately. provisions, U.S. scientists have been In the nongovernmental effort, operating three seismic stations they Soviet scientists were at work in established near the Semipalatinsk Nevada preparing their own equip- test site in 1986. Late last year they ment to monitor two small under- monitored three chemical explosions ground chemical explosions to be to demonstrate that they could deset off near the U.S.'s major test site tect even very small underground in that state late this week. The aim explosions. of that project is to explore the feaU.S. officials have looked with sibility of monitoring very small ex- disfavor on this entire project. They plosions, or even verifying a total feel it is unhelpful to have a private ban. U.S. group directly involved with All indications are that U.S. and the Soviets in such a matter. Until Soviet negotiators currently work- recently the U.S. has not allowed ing in Geneva to iron out details Soviet scientists to participate in the for what has been dubbed a joint field in a parallel effort in the U.S. verification experiment are making But permission has been granted for excellent progress. Each side will the Soviets to establish a temporary be allowed to have its own team seismic station in the U.S. and parpresent at the other's testing site to ticipate in monitoring the chemical measure the intensity of a nuclear explosions planned for this month. explosion. Both tests likely will be The Soviet Union favors a total conducted in July. ban on all testing. And it unilaterThe Soviets maintain that current ally halted its own testing program teleseismic methods are satisfactory for 19 months between August 1985 for monitoring the 150-kiloton lim- and February 1987. The other nuit. But the U.S. insists that a hydro- clear powers did not reciprocate, but dynamic method that involves on- continued to test. For the U.S. a site testing is essential. The limit total ban is perceived as a very longwas established in the Threshold term goal. Michael Heylin, Washington Test Ban Treaty (TTBT) signed in
Nuclear test ban efforts advance on two fronts
