Maintaining the Integrity of Scientific Research: Summary of a Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Transmitted to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, Second Session, Volume 2U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990 - 15 pages |
Common terms and phrases
accused agencies allegations of misconduct argued that journals Barber Bivens California Chairman CHRISTOPHER SHAYS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE conduct Counsel DANA ROHRABACHER DON RITTER emphasis added Federal fraud Friedman Gilmer HARRY JOHNSTON Health Care Quality HOWARD WOLPE Institute of Medicine integrity of scientific investigating misconduct Investigations and Oversight issue of misconduct JAMES SENSENBRENNER JIMMY HAYES journal editors Koshland MARILYN LLOYD miscon misconduct in science misconduct investigations Mishkin proposed NIH and NSF NIMH Office of Scientific panel peer review Pennsylvania policies and procedures practices that seriously prevalence of misconduct problem publication Quality Improvement Act Raub regulations research environment research practices responsibility RICK BOUCHER ROBERT RON PACKARD Schachman scientific community scientific enterprise Scientific Integrity Review scientific journals scientific mis scientific misconduct scientific process scientific research scientists seriously deviate sloppy Sprague Subcommittee on Investigations T]he TECHNOLOGY testified testimony TIM VALENTINE tions told Rep TOM MCMILLEN U.S. HOUSE universities whistleblowers
Popular passages
Page 4 - ... or institutions that apply for as well as those that receive extramural research, research-training, or research-related grants or cooperative agreements under the PHS, and to all intramural PHS research. In the proposed rule, the PHS's definition of misconduct included a second clause referring to "material failure to comply with federal requirements that uniquely relate to the conduct of research.
Page 4 - We also proposed striking from the proposed definition the phrase, "other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.
Page 4 - Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing, carrying out, or reporting results from activities funded by NSF; or (2) Retaliation of any kind against a person who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged misconduct and who has not acted in bad faith.
Page 4 - Misconduct" means (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing, carrying out, or reporting results from research; (2) material failure to comply with Federal requirements for protection of researchers, human subjects, or the public or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals; or (3) failure to meet other material legal requirements governing research. (b) The NSF will take appropriate action against individuals or institutions upon...
Page 8 - Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton...
Page 1 - Windom, whose name is pending before you for confirmation as the Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Page 5 - Framework for Institutional Policies and Procedures to Deal with Fraud in Research" was developed during the Summer and Fall of 1988 through the efforts of an interassociation working group.
Page 1 - ... and is currently under review at the Office of Management and Budget. Over the last year, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, NIH, and ADAMHA have consulted with the research community on how to improve our own system for dealing with scientific misconduct. As a result, the PHS decided that the establishment of two offices — complementary but not overlapping-- would strengthen its oversight and investigative functions in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct.
Page 4 - It is our view that this language is vague and its inclusion could discourage unorthodox, novel, or highly innovative approaches which in the past have provided the impetus for major advances in science. It hardly needs pointing out that brilliant, creative, pioneering research deviates from that commonly accepted within the scientific community.