jj. John Maddox, "Can Journals Influence Science," Nature, Vol. 339, kk. Charles Babbage, "The Decline of Science in England," Nature, 1394 1395 1399 11. Arnold S. Relman and Marcia Angell, "How Good is Peer Review," 11. Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette, "Ethical Misconduct in Research Publica- 1408 1411 MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1989 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 9:47 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Roe, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Chairman ROE [presiding]. The committee will come to order. Good morning, ladies and gentleman. The Chair apologizes for being a few minutes late. Today, the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee will hear testimony on how to maintain the integrity of scientific research. Contrary to some perceptions, this is not a question, as we all know. This subcommittee addressed the issue in 1981 in the first Congressional hearing on the topic of science misconduct.1 At that time several leading scientists testified that science misconduct was not a general problem, but rather a result of aberrant personalities and lapses in self-correcting systems of science. Fortunately, the Science Committee now realizes that science misconduct is a general problem that threatens the health of the scientific enterprise at all levels. I say "fortunately" because the first step to solving a problem is admitting that the problem exists. Since 1981, the Science Committee has been visibly active in addressing the problem of science misconduct. There will be no greater force for maintaining the integrity of scientific research than the science community itself. But the science community needs help in this endeavor. The federal government cannot fund science at ever greater levels and then turn its back on the problem of scientific review and scientific integrity. It must provide support for the institutions we sponsor for detecting and responding to such misconduct and must support those who responsibly bring to light incidents of unethical activities. There is the mistaken perception that science misconduct is a disease that affects only the biological and biomedical sciences. Of course this is not true. 1 Fraud in Biomedical Research, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, First Session; March 31; April 1, 1989; Serial 97-11 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1981). (1) Just this month the United States Geological Survey discovered that one of its scientists had falsified data on a groundwater study, and the Geological Survey notified 1600 libraries and 30 technical publications that the study was a fraud and had to be destroyed.2 What is most surprising and disappointing is not the fraudulent study the scientist conducted, but the fact that two institutions, MIT and the University of Alberta in Canada, had quietly dismissed the scientist from their schools for falsifying his thesis and forging recommendation letters. I accent the word "quietly" because the failure to notify others of the early misconduct most surely contributed to the fraud the Geological Survey has now suffered. We have invited a distinguished group of scientists, administrators, and science editors to discuss this problem with us today in a nonadversarial environment. We hope to learn how the education and training of our scientists can be improved to eliminate the practices and pressures that contribute to science misconduct. We want to understand how institutions can better respond to this problem and protect the interests of both the accused and the accusers under an American sense of fair play. We are very interested to hear now how the Federal agencies that fund research can support institutions in their investigations and help bring them to timely and thorough resolutions. Finally, we welcome the editors of Nature, Science, and the Journal of the American Medical Association to learn how they will contribute to the integrity of scientific research in their publication and retraction practices. I thank all of our witnesses for coming here today and look forward to our discussions. In addition to the hearing today, the subcommittee will release next week a report prepared at our request by the Congressional Research Service on the issue of science misconduct. I believe the report will be very useful to the Congress and the scientific community in understanding the problem and how it must be addressed. 3 [The prepared opening statement of the Honorable Robert A. Roe follows:] 2 Eliot Marshall, "USGS Reports a Fraud," Science, June 23, 1989, p. 1436. See Appendix 9-R. 3 Marilyn J. Littlejohn and Christine M. Mathews, Scientific Misconduct in Academia: Efforts to Address the Issue, Congressional Research Service Report #89-392 SPR, June 30, 1989 (Washington: The Library of Congress, Mimeo). See Appendix 2. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. ROE AT THE HEARING OF THE INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE ON "MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH" GOOD MORNING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. TODAY THE INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE WILL HEAR TESTIMONY ON HOW TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. CONTRARY TO SOME PERCEPTIONS, THIS IS NOT A NEW QUESTION. THIS SUBCOMMITTEE ADDRESSED IT IN 1981 IN THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON THE TOPIC OF SCIENCE MISCONDUCT. AT THAT TIME, SEVERAL LEADING SCIENTISTS TESTIFIED THAT SCIENCE MISCONDUCT WAS NOT A GENERAL PROBLEM, BUT RATHER THE RESULT OF ABERRANT PERSONALITIES AND LAPSES IN THE SELF-CORRECTING SYSTEM OF SCIENCE. FORTUNATELY, THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY NOW REALIZES THAT SCIENCE 2 SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE AT ALL LEVELS. I SAY "FORTUNATELY" BECAUSE THE BUT THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY NEEDS HELP IN THIS ENDEAVOR. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT FUND SCIENCE AT EVER GREATER LEVELS AND THEN TURN ITS BACK ON THE PROBLEM OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT. IT MUST PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETECTING AND RESPONDING TO SUCH MISCONDUCT AND MUST SUPPORT THOSE WHO RESPONSIBLY BRING TO LIGHT INCIDENTS OF UNETHICAL ACTIVITIES. THERE IS THE MISTAKEN PERCEPTION THAT SCIENCE MISCONDUCT IS A DISEASE THAT AFFECTS ONLY THE BIOLOGICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES. THIS IS NOT TRUE. JUST THIS MONTH THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DISCOVERED THAT ONE OF ITS SCIENTISTS HAD FALSIFIED DATA ON A GROUNDWATER STUDY. THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NOTIFIED 1600 LIBRARIES AND 30 TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS THAT THE STUDY WAS A FRAUD AND SHOULD BE DESTROYED. - IS NOT THE FRAUDULENT WHAT IS MOST SURPRISING AND DISAPPOINTING - |