itiC"-
government
Unending debate over definition of research misconduct The federal government's attempt to define research misconduct is a long saga with no near-term resolution in sight. Last fall, the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) circulated among the agencies that fund scientific research a draft statement defining misconduct in science and a process for addressing it. However, the agencies' views of this definition still differ sharply, preventing a consensus from being reached. The OSTP statement circumscribes misconduct narrowly, defining it as "fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reporting research." The regulatory definitions used by the former Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation include the category "other serious deviations from accepted research practices." The OSTP definition leaves out the "serious deviations" clause. Most academic scientists and federal agencies that fund scientific research favor the narrow definition proposed by OSTP. For instance, Marye Anne Fox, vice president for research at the University of Texas, Austin, says the catchall phrase "other serious deviations" is too ambiguous and that other laws and regulations can be used to handle cases that fall outside the narrow definition. " 'Other' means that it could be applied to virtually anything, and 'serious' is undefined," she says. But NSF and some members of the academic community prefer a broader definition that includes "other serious deviations." NSF's National Science Board Chairman Richard N. Zare of Stanford University believes there are some kinds of egregious scientific misconduct that would be very difficult to investigate and punish if the definition were to consist of only fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. NSF officials have stated publicly that they prefer the broader definition but can live with the narrower one as long as the foundation can continue using its current definition. In late July, the issue of misconduct in science was discussed at a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee. There, Joseph Bordogna, NSF acting deputy director, said NSF's definition of scientific misconduct "has served the foundation well, and NSF hopes to continue 28 AUGUST 4, 1997 C&EN
using its current" broader definition. "NSF has asked for and received assurances," he added, "that even if a uniform federal definition and process for research misconduct were put in place," the agency would be able to take action against misdeeds that cannot be called fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Zare cites a number of instances of scientific misconduct that fall outside the narrow definition. For example, an investigator may willfully not follow a university rule that requires consent from human subjects. Here, the misconduct is egregious, he says, but the investigator has not falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized anything. Other examples involve misuse of research funds. Some of these infractions can be punished under embezzlement laws, Zare says, but others might not be covered. Also, the sabotage of experiments, if it does not involve the actual destruction of lab equipment, would sometimes be easier to punish under a misconduct regulation than under vandalism laws, he explains. In contrast, Fox says, "there are legal approaches that can handle anything outside the restricted definition." Chris B. Pascal, acting director of the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health & Human Services, agrees basically, but emphasizes that he cannot speak officially for HHS. "Based on the record of cases we've handled over the
Zare: prefers broader definition
past five years, we feel that serious misconduct can be handled under fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism," he says. OSTP's draft statement also includes procedures for investigating cases of misconduct. In this area, there seems to be much less controversy, at least among the agencies. According to Charles Hess, director of international programs at the University of California, Davis, the original OSTP statement called for immediate disclosure of the name of the researcher who is being investigated. Agencies objected strongly to this provision, saying that disclosure should not be made, even to the person under investigation, until it is determined that the charges are, in fact, serious, and then only those who have a need to know should be informed. Revealing the name of an accused researcher can do a lot of damage to a person's credibility, even it if turns out later that the allegations are not true. "Many charges of misconduct are brought," Zare says, "which are really priorityfightsor authorshipfights."If the university investigators find that the charges are actionable and fall under the definition of misconduct, then the accused should be formally made aware of this problem so he or she can mount a defense, Zare says. At this time, the investigation should still be kept confidential except for those who have a need to know about it, he adds. The original OSTP statement on confidentiality procedures is being changed in the revised version. The OSTP statement also stipulates that the processes of investigation and subsequent adjudication in misconduct cases should be handled by two separate groups of people, usually two separate offices. Some of the difficulties encountered in cases of misconduct occur in situations where investigation and adjudication are handled by the same people, Zare says. "When judge and jury are wrapped into one, that is a recipe for disaster," he says. OSTP staffers expect to send a revised draft of the misconduct definition and processes to the agencies in about two months. Eventually, after that draft has been rerevised, it will be sent to universities as well. Andfinally,after a public comment period, the policy will be promulgated as a federal regulation. However, the final regulation may not be truly a governmentwide policy. It may grant NSF more leeway in the types of cases it can investigate than it gives other agencies. Bette Hilemcm
