- Email: [email protected]
WASHINGTON Proposed US misconduct rules draw opposition
DISPATCHES WASHINGTON
Proposed US misconduct rules draw opposition
he research
community T experiencingappropriate another
here is of its
the governthe policing of scientific misconduct. The occasion is a series of recommendations, derived from a 2-year study, that were intended to resolve many prickly issues at this interface of science and government. Opposition to the outcome of this assignment has been sounded from influential quarters, with the latest coming on May 13 in an announcement of the reservations of "Fifty professional societies with a collective membership of more than 285 000 scientists in the fields of biological and biomedical research". The recommendations at issue were composed by the 12-member Commission on Research Integrity, mandated by Congress and established in 1993 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to examine the ground rules for misconduct and suggest revisions. Chaired by Kenneth J Ryan, a professor at Harvard Medical School, the Commission held 15 meetings between June, 1994, and October, 1995, and then unloaded its creation,
spasms
over
ment role in
a
68-page document, Integrity
and
Misconduct in Research. The most disputed item is a proposed new definition of misconduct, which critics have denounced as a needless replacement of simplicity with awesome complexity. The current regulations define misconduct as
"Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differ-
NEW DELHI
in
interpretations or judgments definition, in effect at HHS since 1989, is buttressed by regulations prescribing the responsibilities of institutions receiving federal research funds, plus protections ences
of data." This
for whistleblowers and other embellishments. After a rough start, the HHS misconduct system seems to have settled into a functional bureaucratic routine. At the National Science Foundation, a nearly identical definition of misconduct is jeal-
ously guarded
as correct.
"...could stifle the intellectual creativity that is the hallmark of our scientific community" In its commentary on the Commission’s recommendations, the National Academy of Sciences endorsed "fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism" (FFP, in the lingo of misconduct specialists) as desirably and The "narrow precise". Commission, however, rejected the trio as excessively broad and vague and recommended a new definition in which "misconduct is explained in terms of serious violations of the obligations of researchers to be truthful and fair". The result was: "Research misconduct is significant behavior that improperly appropriates intellectual property or contributions of others, that intentionally impedes the progress of research, or that risks corrupting the scientific record or compromising the integrity of scientific practices. Such behaviors are unethical and unacceptable in
proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or in reviewing the proposals
or
research reports of others".
The Commission’s proposed definition is followed by examples, under the headings of Misappropriation, Interference, and Misrepresentation, which, if adopted, would result in the replacement of FFP by MIM. There are other recommendations, including a seven-point whistleblower’s bill of rights and a prescribed expansion of anti-misconduct training. Echoing previous complaints, the Coalition of Biological Scientists declared its preference for FFP, warning that "The overly broad, legalistic and open-ended definition proposed by the [Commission] could stifle the intellectual creativity that is the hallmark of our scientific community, by opening scientists up to unpredictable and ill-defined charges of misconduct". The Coalition also expressed concern about imposing additional costs on institutions. And it worried about an emphasis on rights of whistleblowers in disregard, as it sees it, of rights of the accused. The Commission’s recommendations are under consideration by a panel chaired by William Raub, former deputy director and acting director of the National Institutes of Health, who is science advisor to the secretary of HHS. Raub’s panel was to report around the end of April, but so far has been silent. A connection with presidential politics may be glimpsed. With the President and his virtually assured opponent, Bob Dole, competing as champions of less government, the recommended new rules could boomerang on the White House. All that would be needed is a bit of partisan inflammation, a commodity in ample supply. Daniel S
Greenberg
Prospects for health after the Indian elections
that the elections here are and the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janta party has assumed office for the time being, will any change be made in India’s health care? The Congress party era that the elections brought to an end was characterised by callous neglect of health. Low budgetary allocation with even lower use turned it into a
Now over,
non-priority area. Although massive foreign loans were acquired in the health sector, they were little used and charges of large-scale corruption were commonplace.
Economic liberalisation introduced by P V Narsimha Rao’s Congress government earned accolades from the business community but the critics pointed to the government’s (suppressed) data that nearly 40% of the population is below the poverty line. Officially, the number is 19%. Concessions to the drug industry under the new drug policy have resulted in increased drug prices, and experts find the Rao government’s handling of the controversial "plague" too
embarrassing to
discuss.
Although health issues are of enormous importance for most people here, it was largely ignored during the election campaigns, beyond platitudes, by all the major political parties-with the notable exception of the Communist Party of India-Marxist, which issued a detailed analysis of health issues. The other political parties might find that they too will have to turn their attentions to health-related coming months.
matters in the
Sanjay Kumar
1475
Proposed US misconduct rules draw opposition
he research
community T experiencingappropriate another
here is of its
the governthe policing of scientific misconduct. The occasion is a series of recommendations, derived from a 2-year study, that were intended to resolve many prickly issues at this interface of science and government. Opposition to the outcome of this assignment has been sounded from influential quarters, with the latest coming on May 13 in an announcement of the reservations of "Fifty professional societies with a collective membership of more than 285 000 scientists in the fields of biological and biomedical research". The recommendations at issue were composed by the 12-member Commission on Research Integrity, mandated by Congress and established in 1993 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to examine the ground rules for misconduct and suggest revisions. Chaired by Kenneth J Ryan, a professor at Harvard Medical School, the Commission held 15 meetings between June, 1994, and October, 1995, and then unloaded its creation,
spasms
over
ment role in
a
68-page document, Integrity
and
Misconduct in Research. The most disputed item is a proposed new definition of misconduct, which critics have denounced as a needless replacement of simplicity with awesome complexity. The current regulations define misconduct as
"Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differ-
NEW DELHI
in
interpretations or judgments definition, in effect at HHS since 1989, is buttressed by regulations prescribing the responsibilities of institutions receiving federal research funds, plus protections ences
of data." This
for whistleblowers and other embellishments. After a rough start, the HHS misconduct system seems to have settled into a functional bureaucratic routine. At the National Science Foundation, a nearly identical definition of misconduct is jeal-
ously guarded
as correct.
"...could stifle the intellectual creativity that is the hallmark of our scientific community" In its commentary on the Commission’s recommendations, the National Academy of Sciences endorsed "fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism" (FFP, in the lingo of misconduct specialists) as desirably and The "narrow precise". Commission, however, rejected the trio as excessively broad and vague and recommended a new definition in which "misconduct is explained in terms of serious violations of the obligations of researchers to be truthful and fair". The result was: "Research misconduct is significant behavior that improperly appropriates intellectual property or contributions of others, that intentionally impedes the progress of research, or that risks corrupting the scientific record or compromising the integrity of scientific practices. Such behaviors are unethical and unacceptable in
proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or in reviewing the proposals
or
research reports of others".
The Commission’s proposed definition is followed by examples, under the headings of Misappropriation, Interference, and Misrepresentation, which, if adopted, would result in the replacement of FFP by MIM. There are other recommendations, including a seven-point whistleblower’s bill of rights and a prescribed expansion of anti-misconduct training. Echoing previous complaints, the Coalition of Biological Scientists declared its preference for FFP, warning that "The overly broad, legalistic and open-ended definition proposed by the [Commission] could stifle the intellectual creativity that is the hallmark of our scientific community, by opening scientists up to unpredictable and ill-defined charges of misconduct". The Coalition also expressed concern about imposing additional costs on institutions. And it worried about an emphasis on rights of whistleblowers in disregard, as it sees it, of rights of the accused. The Commission’s recommendations are under consideration by a panel chaired by William Raub, former deputy director and acting director of the National Institutes of Health, who is science advisor to the secretary of HHS. Raub’s panel was to report around the end of April, but so far has been silent. A connection with presidential politics may be glimpsed. With the President and his virtually assured opponent, Bob Dole, competing as champions of less government, the recommended new rules could boomerang on the White House. All that would be needed is a bit of partisan inflammation, a commodity in ample supply. Daniel S
Greenberg
Prospects for health after the Indian elections
that the elections here are and the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janta party has assumed office for the time being, will any change be made in India’s health care? The Congress party era that the elections brought to an end was characterised by callous neglect of health. Low budgetary allocation with even lower use turned it into a
Now over,
non-priority area. Although massive foreign loans were acquired in the health sector, they were little used and charges of large-scale corruption were commonplace.
Economic liberalisation introduced by P V Narsimha Rao’s Congress government earned accolades from the business community but the critics pointed to the government’s (suppressed) data that nearly 40% of the population is below the poverty line. Officially, the number is 19%. Concessions to the drug industry under the new drug policy have resulted in increased drug prices, and experts find the Rao government’s handling of the controversial "plague" too
embarrassing to
discuss.
Although health issues are of enormous importance for most people here, it was largely ignored during the election campaigns, beyond platitudes, by all the major political parties-with the notable exception of the Communist Party of India-Marxist, which issued a detailed analysis of health issues. The other political parties might find that they too will have to turn their attentions to health-related coming months.
matters in the
Sanjay Kumar
1475