Abstract
Whistleblowers remain essential as complainants in allegations of research misconduct. Frequently internal to the research team, they are poorly protected from acts of retribution, which may deter the reporting of misconduct. In order to perform their important role, whistleblowers must be treated fairly. Draft regulations for whistleblower protection were published for public comment almost a decade ago but never issued (Dahlberg 2013). In the face of the growing challenge of research fraud, we suggest vigorous steps, to include: organizational responsibility to certify the accuracy of research including audit, required whistleblower action in the face of imminent or grave harm to subjects, strengthened legal protections against retaliation including prompt enactment of Federal whistleblower protections and consideration of criminalizing the most egregious cases of research misconduct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Code of Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 93 2005.
Dahlberg, J. (2013) Email correspondence to the author 12/19/13.
Dahlberg, J., & Mahler, C. (2006). The Poehlman case: Running away from the truth. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 157–173.
Dal-Re, R., & Caplan, A. (2014). Time to ensure that clinical trial appropriate results are actually published. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. doi:10.1007/s00228-013-1635-0.
Gewith, V. (2006). Uncovering misconduct. Nature, 485, 1137–1139.
Goldenring, J. (2010). Innocence and due diligence: Managing unfounded allegations of scientific misconduct. Academic Medicine, 85, 527–530.
Handling Misconduct NPRM-Regulation, 65 Fed Reg 70830 and Fed Reg 82972, (Nov 28, 2000). May be obtained on ORI’s web site.
Interlandi, J. (2006). An unwelcome discovery. New York Times, October 22, 2006.
Kohn, S. M. (2011). The whistleblowers handbook. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press.
Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877–882.
Pascal, C. B. (2006). Complainant issues in research misconduct: The Office of Research Integrity experience. Experimental Biology in Medicine, 231, 1264–1270.
Redman, B. K. (2009). Research misconduct and fraud. In V. Ravitsky, A. Fiester, & A. L. Caplan (Eds.), Penn center guide to bioethics (pp. 213–222). New York: Springer.
Redman, B. K., & Caplan, A. L. (2005). Off with their heads: The need to criminalize some forms of scientific misconduct. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 33(2), 345–348.
Research Triangle Institute. (October 30, 1995). Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in science cases. ORI Website.
Richman, V., & Richman, A. (2012). A tale of two perspectives: regulation versus self-regulation, a financial reporting approach (from Sarbanes-Oxley) for research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 241–246.
Rothschild, J. (2013). Rising in defense of nonprofit organizations’ social purposes: How do whistle-blowers fare when they expose corruption in nonprofits? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 1–13.
Smith, R. (2005). Should scientific fraud be a criminal offense? British Medical Journal, 331, 288.
Sovacool, B. (2005). Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(5), W1–W7.
Titus, S., Wells, J., & Rhoades, L. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.
Wadman, M. (1996). Hostile reception to US misconduct report. Nature, 301, 639.
Wright, D. E. (2013). Guest editorial. Accountability in Research, 20, 287–290.
Yong, E., Ledford, H., & Van Noorden, R. (2013). Three ways to blow the whistle. Nature, 502, 454–457.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Redman, B., Caplan, A. No One Likes a Snitch. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 813–819 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9570-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9570-8