3 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 WE ARE VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR HOW THE FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT FUND I THANK ALL OF OUR WITNESSES FOR COMING HERE TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE, THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA, MR. RITTER I now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Ritter from Pennsylvania, for his opening statement. Mr. RITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you for holding these hearings. I think they are extremely important, and I think the public is, in today's climate, given the Dingell hearings, very interested in knowing the full story of just what indeed is this whole issue of scientific misconduct about, and the public deserves to know. After all, tens of billions of dollars a year are spent from taxpayers' money on this issue. Mr. Chairman, scientists have always made mistakes in the creative process of the scientific method and relying upon trial and error, and some of these mistakes in today's climate could conceivably be termed scientific misconduct. There is some widely reported cases of real misconduct recently, and the Dingell hearings, as I mentioned, have riveted public attention on this subject. But even one notorious case can wreak havoc on public confidence in science. Science is unique among the disciplines in that it has mechanisms of self-regulation: peer review and replication. If something doesn't work, if the data isn't right, and if it is a reasonably important study, pretty soon people are going to find out about it. The scientific community puts a premium on honesty and polices its internal affairs with a vigor that may in a lot of other areas be unparalleled. Still, given the enormous volume of scientific experimentation and the impact of growing government support of science, one has to wonder what the impact of so much money, so much Federal money being spent on science and research from such remote locations-with this happening, how can we ensure that there is no misconduct and that the process does not engender unethical behavior? And, frankly, does such a situation of tremendous resources being applied promote unethical behavior given the tremendous competition there? In 1981, this Subcommittee sent a warning to the scientific community that it needed to supplement its safeguards with policies for dealing with misconduct allegations. Most institutions have moved forward with policies designed to handle misconduct cases. We are here today to explore what the parties with responsibility for detecting and preventing misconduct-scientists, universities, the private sector, the Federal Government, and the journals-can do to encourage public confidence in the process. This is a broad inquiry which doesn't focus on any one case, but which will examine a comprehensive approach to combatting potential misconduct. Bringing our newest technological breakthroughs closer to the marketplace relies upon the persistence and the mindpower of scientists and engineers who are willing to experiment with novel approaches to difficult situations. We must ensure that the pursuit of science and the cutting edge is not compromised by initiatives which hamper science freedom. Scientists and engineers must be allowed to make mistakes, in other words. We need to avoid tumbling into some "Dark Ages" where scientists and engineers shun creativity for incurring the wrath of some Federal science police. On the other hand, we need to ensure that responsible measures are adopted to curb what is real fraudulent or seriously unethical behavior. Mr. Chairman, in this era of greater amounts of disclosure of all sorts, shouldn't we ask whether disclosure of the findings of misconduct investigations be encouraged and even protected to better deter others from misconduct? But we need to be careful here as well. We are seeing a liability explosion in America, and the entire field of retractions and corrections of scientific papers is ripe for some serious libel litigation, and that is the last thing we need, to bring the liability explosion deeply into the process of research and development. I would like to hear more from our witnesses, especially our distinguished representatives from the scientific journals, on that subject. I hope we can conduct a productive discussion, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome our witnesses here today, and I thank you. Chairman ROE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Chair-some housekeeping-requests unanimous consent and without objection permission is granted for the coverage of this meeting by television, radio, and still photography. The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Hayes, for an opening statement. Mr. HAYES. With our time restraints, I will be very brief. The Chairman used a phrase of a nonconfrontational hearing, and that is very correct. I would like to add to that the element of politics. Those members of the scientific community are so often saying that the last thing they want to do is get mixed up in the politics of their university, the politics of the scientific community, and finally the politics of this body injecting itself in their lives. What becomes appropriate is to point out that I represent, for example, a southwest Louisiana district with two universities, of which I am very proud, but that do not even play a minuscule part in the funding of research levels about which we are speaking. 4 I mention that because, like any other body, the scientific research area is not immune from the impact of the headlines of criticism, and therefore when there are problems, that becomes the paramount source of information to the public. It distorts to the people whom I represent the impact of the work done by the scientific community, and very few of our children go to MIT and very few go to Stanford, and therefore the attractiveness of spending large amounts of money in what seem to be far away and unrelated places without the ability to relate the products of your research to their daily lives makes it very, very difficult politically. And consequently what we ask of you is not a confrontational hearing where we are calling names and hunting witches, but instead we are asking you to give us the assurance of a mechanism. Whether that comes in a response from the Federal agencies working with the universities, working with those who implement the discretionary funds that we are able to raise from the agreement of a majority of 435 Members of Congress, with the assurance not 'McNeese State University and the University of Southwest Louisiana. that we will create a perfect world, not that we will have no instances whatsoever of wrongdoing, but that I can go home into an oil and gas and seafood production area and assure those people that the dollars that we spend in research will impact upon their lives, that they are well spent and that any exceptions to the rule of scientific integrity are just that, rare exceptions, and that most importantly of all, the mechanism by which they were discovered was self-implemented by those who police themselves, and then I can easily and correctly and I assure you sincerely vote for not a cut but additional funds in an area where we have got to prepare our children for the twenty-first century. Thank you. Chairman ROE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisi ana. The Chair recognizes the gentleman, our Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Walker from Pennsylvania. Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No one likes to have one of their peers accused of misconduct. We would all like to hope that those we work with will conduct themselves in a professional manner, and whether the subject is science or politics, any allegation of misconduct needs to be thoroughly investigated. Historically, the scientific community has policed itself through the peer review process. While other members may seek to highlight one case, let's place everything into perspective. The National Institutes of Health receives about 20 allegations of misconduct a year. In fiscal year 1988, NIH awarded 25,563 research grants and contracts. That means that .0007 percent have allegations of misconduct. In addition, the National Science Foundation has investigated 12 allegations of scientific misconduct between 1980 and 1987. Most of those allegations concerned plagiarism. I realize that scientific misconduct is a serious violation of public trust and can cause grave harm. The science community ought to be accountable to the public. However, major Federal interference in this issue may be counterproductive, given the small number of cases of alleged misconduct and the potential possibility that intervention will stifle creative efforts. I know that the scientific community is actively seeking ways to prevent misconduct and to promote responsible research practice, as well as ways to improve the way it investigates allegations of misconduct, but they do not need congressional truth police descending into the labs and creating confusion. Such an initiative would be yet another example of Congress actively destroying sci ence. I look forward to hearing about the efforts by the scientific community, and I hope that we can find ways to maintain and improve the high quality and integrity of U.S. research; but let us not kid ourselves, government interference and investigation has the potential of creating significant harm in science. That we cannot afford to permit if we are to responsibly address the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The complete statement of Hon. Robert S. Walker follows:] HON. ROBERT S. WALKER (R-PA) THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. NO ONE LIKES TO HAVE ONE OF THEIR PEERS ACCUSED OF MISCONDUCT. WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO HOPE THAT THOSE WE WORK WITH WILL CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER. AND WHETHER THE SUBJECT IS SCIENCE OR POLITICS, ANY ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT NEEDS TO BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. HISTORICALLY, THE WHILE OTHER MEMBERS MAY SEEK TO HIGHLIGHT ONE CASE, LET'S PLACE EVERYTHING INTO |