Personal: Professional: Appointments: Currently: Honors: Memberships: Publications: Interests: Paul J. Friedman, M.D. Married, four children. B.S. (Mathematics) University of Wisconsin, 1955 Balliol College, Oxford University 1957-58, as Research Fellow, Dept. of Pharmacology Intern in Medicine, Einstein College of Medicine 1960-61 Resident in Radiology, Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital, 1961-64 Advanced Rellow in Academic Radiology, James Picker Chief of Chest Radiology, University of California Consultant in Radiology and Staff Radiologist, Assistant Professor of Radiology (1968), Associate On Sabbatical Leave as Visiting Scholar, Institute and Association of American Medical Colleges Member of the IOM Committee on the Responsible Conduct of Research 1987-89 Participant in Workshops on Fraud and Misconduct in Science, of the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (AAAS and ABA) 1987-89 РВК, АОА Markle Scholar in Academic Medicine 1969-74 Association of University Radiologists, American Thoracic Society, Fleischner Society, AAMC, AAAS, Presentations: Many on chest radiology; several on research misconduct, faculty aging, conflict of interest. Pulmonary radiology and pathology; lung cancer staging; computers in medicine; technology assessment; faculty conflict of interest issues; faculty aging and renewal; research misconduct. Mr. HAYES. Thank you very much. Dr. Barber. TESTIMONY OF DR. ALBERT A. BARBER, VICE CHANCELLOR, RESEARCH PROGRAMS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES, CA Dr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted my testimony for the record. This will be simply a summary of that testimony. Mr. Chairman, I am Albert Barber, vice-chancellor of research programs at UCLA. I am pleased to be here to have the opportunity to present my views on an issue of such great importance to me, my institution, and the scientific community. The issue of scientific misconduct has attracted the attention of all who deal with science. It is an issue of concern to those who do science, those who report it, those who administer it, and those responsible for the oversight of the funds which are expended on it. Though there are continuing discussions on how prevalent the activity is or how effective our institutional procedures are in detecting and investigating it, the significance of the issue extends far beyond the exercise of counting cases or writing investigative procedures. It impacts the very fabric of science. The scientific process depends on the integrity of all who do science. Serious deviations from the norms of the scientific process severely weaken an enterprise that is based on trust, openness, accuracy, and truth. It threatens two essential ingredients of science, credibility and reliability. It was for these reasons that the reports of fabrication and falsification during the 1970 decade sent shock waves through the scientific community and the institutions in which science was being carried out. Cases of misconduct were being reported and institutions dealing with these cases were confronted with a complex set of procedural issues related to investigating and reporting on alleged misconduct. It was a relatively new phenomenon and most of us were inexperienced with procedures for responding to allegations of misconduct. As a result, the investigations of these early cases were carried out in a crisis atmosphere, with the consequences of the delays and the denials that occur in such an atmosphere. In response to this situation, we have seen a decade of activity devoted to promoting the integrity of science and improving the process of investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. The 1982 report from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the 1983 report from the Association of American Universities 60 and, incidentally, I was a member of that committee that produced that report-set forth the essential principles, guidelines, and recommendations regarding the integrity of the scientific process. The reports contained definitions of misconduct and a description of a prototype procedure for investigating allegations of misconduct. Between September 1987 and February 1989, the AAAS/ABA National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists sponsored three 60 See Appendix 3-B. workshops as part of their project on scientific fraud and misconduct.61 Reports from these workshops deal with case studies, institutional procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct, and legal issues raised by these procedures. The issues of prevalence, deterrence, and due process were themes that ran through all three workshops, and the resultant reports have contributed significantly to a better understanding of these issues. In 1988, an interassociation group composed of individuals representing higher education and the scientific societies produced a report entitled "Framework for Institutional Policies and Procedures to Deal with Fraud in Research." 62 The report includes detailed procedures designed to provide fair, workable, and expeditious procedures for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. That document expanded upon the investigative procedures which were outlined in the 1982 AAMC report. Although many universities have already developed policies to deal with misconduct, the framework will be useful as we continue to refine them in light of new regulations and new experiences. In 1989, the Institute of Medicine published its report, which has been referred to several times in these hearings, entitled "The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences." 63 The report is a summary of a lengthy study carried out to examine the full spectrum of issues related to scientific integrity and to develop principles and proposals designed to strengthen the standards of research conduct. This report contains a bibliography of 188 references, of which 178 are dated in the decade of 1980. I cite these numbers only to give a sense of the amount of ongoing activity related to the issues being discussed by this subcommittee. One of the complicating aspects of the present discussions related to misconduct and science is that it is occurring in an increasingly antiscience environment. The antiscience mood is most plainly seen in the literature of the animal rights movement, but it is also evident in the activities of groups who are expressing concern about the issues such as biotechnology development and hazardous waste disposal. This antiscience mood certainly contributes to the mistrust of science and the public's growing mistrust in science will make it more difficult to deal with the issue of misconduct in sci ence. One additional element has recently been introduced and confounded the discussions of misconduct. At the Congressional hearings on scientific misconduct held last fall,64 the conflict of interest issue entered as a full-fledged partner into the misconduct debate. Recent cases of misconduct that have been tied to conflict of inter 61 AAAS-ABA National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, Project on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct: Report on Workshop Number One (September 18-20, 1987); Report on Workshop Number Two (September 23-25, 1988); Report on Workshop Number Three (February 17-18, 1989). Available from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005. 62 See Appendix 3-F. 63 See Appendix 4. 64 Federal Response to Misconduct in Science: Are Conflicts of Interest Hazardous to Our Health? Hearing before a Subcommittee [Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations] of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, 100th Congress, Second Session; September 29, 1988 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1989). est of individuals involved are certainly of grave concern to all of us. However, I suggest that misconduct and conflict of interest must be dealt with as separate entities. Joining the two complicates our ability to deal effectively with either one. It is important that we continue our discussions on ways of improving scientific integrity and of maintaining public confidence in science and its institutions, and toward this end I have three modest suggestions. My first suggestion is that all who do science must commit to an environment that engenders scientific integrity in all that they do. As a minimum, this includes openness of the laboratory, duplication of results, and faithfulness of reporting. It involves a respect for data and recordkeeping, as well as the willingness to have one's work subjected to critical peer review and the willingness to assume the responsibility for critically reviewing the work of others. It involves the responsibility of training others in good practices and instilling in each of our students the need to follow the principles of research. It involves reporting misconduct and protecting those who in good faith report it. My second suggestion is that administrators carefully review their existing policies and procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct and strengthen them when they are found to be lacking. Once in place they must be widely circulated and their significance repeatedly communicated. We all have well-established codes of conduct which specify that we practice intellectual honesty in all things that we do. Clear procedures for investigating violation of the code are essential. My third suggestion is that those involved in funding and regulating science not be tempted to write more legislation and regulations before we have more clearly delineated the criteria and expectations of such legislation. I believe that we must allow institutions an opportunity to provide our patrons with an assurance that we can deal with this issue through self-regulation. Such assurances have worked in the area of protecting human subjects, protecting animal subjects in research, and I firmly believe that a similar approach is the only appropriate course of action for dealing with the issue of misconduct in science. In conclusion, I would like to observe that the situation with detecting and investigating scientific misconduct is not as bad as our detractors would like us to believe, and on the other hand, it is not as good as we would like to see it. Our ongoing discussions of ways to maintain integrity in science and to investigate allegations of misconduct should not be viewed as admissions that there is no integrity in science or that we do not have procedures. We have an abundance of both. However, these discussions can be viewed as a recognition that we can and must do better if we are to sustain the public support that is so essential for what we do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The complete prepared statement of Dr. Barber follows:] |