Falsification of Credentials in the Research Setting; Scientific Misconduct?

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra M. Parrish
Keyword(s):  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
White Collar Crime ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Research Setting ◽  
Professional Misconduct ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Definition Of

The debate about the definition of scientific miscon duct is being revisited by the scientific community in response to the Commission on Research Integrity's (CRI) recommendation for a new definition. Scientists and lawyers are debating whether scientific misconduct should include acts that are not unique to the scientific community and do not affect the research. Falsification of credentials is one form of such misconduct.The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), the two federal agencies primarily responsible for developing policies on scientific misconduct, have struggled to define scientific rnisconduct and to decide which forms of professional misconduct do and do not fall within the definition. Although falsification of credentials is not unique to the scientific community, OR1 and NSF have determined that when researchers lie about their credentials, such conduct may constitute scientific misconduct. The question is why this form of professional misconduct has been labeled scientific misconduct when it occurs in a research setting, and whether any distinction exists between this white coat crime and white collar crime.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

Nearly ninety percent of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

Nearly ninety percent of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Loikith ◽  
Robert P Bauchwitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
Audit Standards

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals The Violation Imperative Part 1: Allegations and Fraud

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
La Shun L. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Public Health Service ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Relational Semantics ◽  
The Public ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Office Of Research Integrity ◽  
The Media ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Serial Positioning

In recent decades, a number of high-profile cases involving fraud as research misconduct have been in the media and resulted in severe consequences for those convicted. According to the increased cases of allegations and coverage in the media, this reflects a heightened awareness that fraudulent actions exist.  Nonetheless, the Office of Research Integrity data suggests that despite the growth in the number of the cases of allegation there has not been a commensurate increase in findings of misconduct. The purpose of this paper is to explore misconduct to better understand what it entails. An analysis of misconduct from the perspective of the definitions of allegations and fraud of is conducted and potential frameworks for understanding both are considered. The paper considers serial-positioning effects of primacy and recency on allegation phenomena, as well as supervenience theory and contextualism as a lens for understanding fraud. Discussion of the relational semantics of the core aspects of fraud and de facto grouping of forms of misconduct.  It is concluded that the interrogative pronouns of “what” and “when” could be used to categorize forms of misconduct laying the foundation for the next paper that deconstructs the definition of falsification according to the Public Health Service.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document