Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy

Academic Medicine

Volumn 87, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 877-882

  Kornfeld, Donald S ^a  

^a College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863512154     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318257ee6a     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Wade N. Expert on morality is on leave after research inquiry. New York Times. 2010:A17.
2. Judson HF. The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. New York, NY: Harcourt; 2004.
3. Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ. A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Acad Med. 1992;67:769-775.
4. Steneck NH. Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: What has and has not been accomplished? Sci Eng Ethics. 1999;5:161-176.
5. Swazey J, Anderson M, Lewis K. Ethical problems in academic research. Acad Sci. 1993;81:542-543.
6. Eastwood S, Derish P, Leash E, Ordway S. Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Sci Eng Ethics. 1996;2:89-114. (Pubitemid 126595014)
7. Geggie D. A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes toward research fraud. J Med Ethics. 2001;27:344-346. (Pubitemid 32952284)
8. Ranstam J, Buyse M, George SL, et al. Fraud in medical research: An international survey of biostatisticians. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:415-427.
9. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005;435:737-738. (Pubitemid 40839708)
10. Anderson MS, Ronning EA, de Vries R, Martinson BC. The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007;13:437-461.
11. Gallup Organization. Observing and Reporting Suspected Misconduct in Biomedical Research. Washington, DC: Office of Research Integrity; 2008.
12. Titus SL, Wells JA, Rhoades LJ. Repairing research integrity. Nature. 2008;453:980-982. (Pubitemid 351871717)
13. Friedman PJ. Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. JAMA. 1990;263:1416-1419. (Pubitemid 20069950)
14. Pfeifer MP, Snodgrass GL. The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA. 1990;263:1420-1423. (Pubitemid 20069951)
15. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 1998;280:296-297. (Pubitemid 28493915)
16. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:609-613. (Pubitemid 46768147)
17. Foo JY. A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011;17:459-468.
18. Zimmer C. It's science, but not necessarily right. New York Times. June 26, 2011:SR12.
19. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Policies and procedures for dealing with possible scientific misconduct in extramural research procedures. Fed Regist. July 13, 1991;56:27383-27394.
20. National Institutes of Health. Reminder and update: Requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research in the National Research Service Award Institutional Training Grants. NIH Guide. 1992;21:2-3.
21. Plemmons DK, Brody SA, Kalichman MW. Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006;12:571-582. (Pubitemid 44338008)
22. DuBois JM, Dueker JM, Andersen EE, Campbell J. The development and assessment of an NIH-funded research ethics training program. Acad Med. 2008;83:596-603.
23. Powell ST, Allison MA, Kalichman MW. Effectiveness of a responsible conduct of research course: A preliminary study. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007;13:249-264.
24. Antes AL, Wang X, Mumford MD, Brown RP, Connelly S, Devenport LD. Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Acad Med. 2010;85:519-526.
25. Board on Health Sciences Policy. Institute of Medicine. Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct. Executive Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.
26. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Research Integrity. Annual Report 2009. http://ori.hhs.gov/images/ddblock/ori-annual- report-2009.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2012.
27. Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, Diaz SR. Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007;13:395-414.
28. Callahan D. The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead. New York, NY: Harcourt; 2004.
29. Reich ES. Former MIT biologist penalized for falsifying data. Nature News and Comment.February 3, 2009. http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090203/full/news. 2009.74.html. Accessed May 8, 2012
30. Wade N. 3 Harvard researchers retract a claim on the aging of stem cells. New York Times. October 15, 2010:A22.
31. Petersdorf RG. The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science. Ann Intern Med. 1986;104:252-254. (Pubitemid 16134716)
32. Wright DE, Titus SL, Cornelison JB. Mentoring and research misconduct: An analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008;14:323-336.
33. Rhoades LJ. Beyond conflict of interest: The responsible conduct of research. Sci Eng Ethics. 2002;8:459-468.
34. Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC. What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Acad Med. 2007;82:853-860. (Pubitemid 47339815)
35. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Research Integrity. Survey of Research Integrity Measures Utilized in Biomedical Research Laboratories. http://ori.hhs.gov/images/ddblock/intergity-measures-final- report-11-07-03.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2012.
36. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. National Academy of Sciences. Advisor, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1997.
37. Feldman MD, Huang L, Guglielmo BJ, et al. Training the next generation of research mentors: The University of California, San Francisco, clinical and translational science institute mentor development program. Clin Transl Sci. 2009;2:216-221.
38. Miceli MP, Near JP. The incidence of wrongdoing, whistle-blowing, and retaliation: Results of a naturally occurring field experiment. Employee Responsibilities Rights J. 1989;2:91-108.
39. Nylenna M, Andersen D, Dahlquist G, Sarvas M, Aakvaag A. Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. National Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries. Lancet. 1999;354:57-61.
40. Research Triangle Institute. Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in science cases. Washington, DC: Office of Research Integrity; 1995.
41. Department of Health and Human Services. Public health service standards for the protection of research misconduct whistleblowers. 42 CFR Part 94. 65 Fed Reg 70830 and 65 Fed Reg 82972.
42. Fischbach RL, Gilbert DC. The ombudsman for research practice: A proposal for a new position and an invitation to comment. Sci Eng Ethics. 1995;1:389-402.
43. Gunsalus CK. Preventing the need for whistleblowing: Practical advice for university administrators. Sci Eng Ethics. 1998;4:75-94. (Pubitemid 128588006)
44. Lubalin JS, Matheson JL. The fallout: What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct? Sci Eng Ethics. 1999;5:229-250.
45. Wade N. Difficulties in defining errors in case against Harvard researcher. New York Times. October 26, 2010:D3.
46. Price AR. Anonymity and pseudonymity in whistleblowing to the US Office of Research Integrity. Acad Med. 1998;73:467-472. (Pubitemid 28261899)