Research integrity: Why it matters

Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 61-64

  Swazey, Judith P ^a  

^a Acadia Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11544324685     PISSN: 08878218     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. J. Swazey, M. Anderson, and K. Louis, "Ethical Problems in Academic Work," American Scientist 81 (November-December 1993), pp. 542-553.
2. P. Friedman, "Misrepresentation of Data and the Integrity of Research," in D. Chesney, ed., Ethical Issues in Research (Frederick, MD: University Publishing Group Inc., 1993).
3. National Academy of Sciences/ National Academy of Engineering/ Institute of Medicine, Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Vol. 1 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992), p. 28.
4. Ibid., p. 5.
5. The Acadia Institute study was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.
6. The Commission on Research Integrity, which was established by Section 162 of Public Law 103-43, the National Institute of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, held 15 meetings and hearings between June 1994 and October 1995. In its charter, the commission was asked to develop a new definition of research misconduct, an assurance process for compliance with Health and Human Services regulations, mechanisms for responding to and overseeing administrative functions and investigations, and a regulation to protect whistleblowers (see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Integrity and Misconduct, Report of the Commission on Research Integrity, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996).
7. See, for example, J. Swazey et al., "Ethical Problems in Academic Work," J. Swazey and S. Scher, eds., Whistleblowing in Biomedical Research (Washington, DC: President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1982); J. Lubalin, M. Ardini, J. Matheson, Consequences of Whistleblowing for the Whistleblower in Misconduct in Science Cases, Final Report to the Office of Research Integrity (Washington, DC: Research Triangle Institute, October 2, 1995).
8. See, for example, J. Swazey et al., "Ethical Problems in Academic Work," J. Swazey and S. Scher, eds., Whistleblowing in Biomedical Research (Washington, DC: President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1982); J. Lubalin, M. Ardini, J. Matheson, Consequences of Whistleblowing for the Whistleblower in Misconduct in Science Cases, Final Report to the Office of Research Integrity (Washington, DC: Research Triangle Institute, October 2, 1995).
9. P. Friedman, "A Last Call for Self-Regulation of Biomedical Research," Academic Medicine 64 (1989), pp. 502-504.
10. I know of several cases, for example, in which institutions have required researchers who have engaged in such offenses as plagiarism to attend educational programs in research ethics.
11. J. Swazey and M. Anderson, Mentors, Advisors, and Role Models in Graduate and Professional Education (Washington, DC: Association of Academic Health Centers, 1996).
12. B. Barber, Science and the Social Order (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1952), p. 139.
13. J. Swazey et al., "Ethical Problems in Academic Work."
14. B. Lewin, "Fraud and the Fabric of Science," Cell 57 (June 2, 1989), pp. 699-700.
15. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 1993 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, NSB 93-1), pp. 203-204.