Science Policy
- PDF / 46,586 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 612 x 792 pts (letter) Page_size
- 73 Downloads / 137 Views
SCIENCE POLICY Incorporating WASHINGTON NEWS and policy news from around the world.
OSTP Guidelines Receive High Marks in Wake of Misconduct Cases in 2002 Federal guidelines for research misconduct were tested in 2002 as the materials science and physics communities dealt with two high-profile cases of alleged scientific fraud. Issued in December 2000 by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the current policies have their roots in nationally publicized incidents of misconduct during the 1980s and 1990s, most of which were in the biomedical area. In response, OSTP authorized the National Science and Technology Council to develop a government-wide federal policy addressing research misconduct, applicable to all institutions receiving federal funds. The OSTP guidelines focus on fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (the socalled FFP approach), according to Arthur Bienenstock of Stanford University, who was involved in drafting the guidelines while serving as OSTP’s associate director for science during the Clinton administration. The alleged misconduct must have been committed “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly,” and the primary responsibility lies with the research institutions for inquiry, investigations, and adjudications. OSTP gave federal agencies one year to publish their own implementation plans, although as of March, some had yet to do so. But most of the stragglers are preparing to comply shortly, according to Kathryn Harrington, a spokesperson for OSTP. Until last year, the physical science community had been confident that the field would remain largely unaffected by the kind of blatant misconduct that had plagued biomedicine. Then came allegations that Victor Ninov, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, had fabricated data to support the discovery of element 118. It was followed closely by similar allegations against Hendrik Schön, a Lucent/Bell Laboratories materials scientist also accused of falsifying data to support his work. Those allegations were borne out by the subsequent investigative committees, who relied heavily on the new federal guidelines as the basis for running their investigations and reaching their conclusions. The guidelines have received almost unanimous high marks from those involved in the investigations. “They were very useful and not overly prescriptive, providing basic principles as a context in which to make judgments and decisions,” said Malcolm Beasley of Stanford University, who chaired the Lucent investigative committee in the Schön matter. “That’s very important for 338
a high-level document.” However, the guidelines do not directly address a central issue that is still sparking debate: the responsibilities of co-authors. In both the Berkeley and Lucent cases, there were experienced, respected co-authors involved who nevertheless failed to detect the fabrications. In the case of element 118, the Berkeley investigative committee upset some members of the scientific community by being sharply critical of Ninov’s co-auth
Data Loading...
