Skip to main content

Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists


Scientific misconduct includes the fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) of concepts, data or ideas; some institutions in the United States have expanded this concept to include “other serious deviations (OSD) from accepted research practice.” It is the absence of this OSD clause that distinguishes scientific misconduct policies of the past from the “research misconduct” policies that should be the basis of future federal policy in this area. This paper introduces a standard for judging whether an action should be considered research misconduct as distinguished from scientific misconduct: by this standard, research misconduct must involve activities unique to the practice of science and must have the potential to negatively affect the scientific record. Although the number of cases of scientific misconduct is uncertain (only the NIH and the NSF keep formal records), the costs are high in terms of the integrity of the scientific record, diversions from research to investigate allegations, ruined careers of those eventually exonerated, and erosion of public confidence in science. Existing scientific misconduct policies vary from institution to institution and from government agency to government agency; some have highly developed guidelines that include OSD, others have no guidelines at all. One result has been that the federal False Claims Act has been used to pursue allegations of scientific misconduct. As a consequence, such allegations have been adjudicated in federal courts, rather than judged by scientific peers. The federal government is now establishing a first-ever research misconduct policy that would apply to all research funded by the federal government regardless of which agency funded the research or whether the research was carried out in a government, industrial or university laboratory. Physical scientists, who up to now have only infrequently been the subject of scientific misconduct allegations, must nonetheless become active in the debate over research misconduct policies and how they are implemented since they will now be explicitly covered by this new federal wide policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Broad, W. and Wade, N. (1982) Betrayers of the Truth. Simon and Schuster, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Corry, L., Renn, J., and Stachel, J. (1997) Belated Decision in the Hillbert-Einstein Priority Dispute. Science 278: 1270–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    42 CFR 50. Subpart A. 1989. Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing with and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science. Code of Federal Regulations.

  4. 4.

    National Science Foundation Inspector General’s Office. (1997) Semiannual Report to the Congress: Number 17; April 1, 1997–September 30, 1991. Washington, DC.

  5. 5.

    National Science Foundation Inspector General’s Office. (1997) Semiannual Report to the Congress: Number 16; October 1, 1996–March 31, 1997. Washington, DC.

  6. 6.

    Buzzelli, DE. (1999) Serious Deviation from Accepted Practices. Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 275–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Goldman, K.A. and Fisher, M.K. (1997) The Constitutionality of the ‘Other Serious Deviations from Accepted Practices’ Clause. Jurimetrics. pp. 149–168.

  8. 8.

    National Academy of Sciences. 1992. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volumes 1 and 2. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Schachman, H.K. (1993) What is Misconduct in Science. Science 261: 148–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    National Science Foundation Inspector General’s Office. (1991) Semiannual Report to the Congress: Number 4; October 1, 1990–March 31, 1991. Washington, DC.

  11. 11.

    Woodward, J. and D. Goodstein (1996) Conduct, Misconduct and the Structure of Science. American Scientist 84: 479–490.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Office of Research Integrity. (1997) Promoting Integrity in Research. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC,

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Shore, E.G. (1995) Effectiveness of Research Guidelines in Prevention of Scientific Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 1(4): 383–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Office of Research Integrity. (1997) Office of Research Integrity 1996 Annual Report. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Commission on Research Integrity. (1995) Integrity and Misconduct in Research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Burd, S. (1995) Federal Panel Will Seek Tougher Rules on Scientific Misconduct. The Chronicle of Higher Education. November 3, 1995, p. A42.

  17. 17.

    Budeiri, P.R. (1996) The Return of Qui Tam. The Washington Lawyer. pp. 24–29.

  18. 18.

    Hoke, F. (1995) Novel Application of Federal Law to Scientific Fraud Worries University and Reinvigorates Whistleblowers. The Scientist 9(17): 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hilts, P.J. (1997) University Forced to Pay $1.6 Million to Researcher. New York Times. August 10, 1997, p. 13.

  20. 20.

    Burk, D.L. (1995) False Claims Act Can Hamper Science with ‘Bounty Hunter’ Suits. The Scientist. 9(17): 12.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Swazey, J.P., Anderson, M.S., and Louis, K.S. (1993) Ethical Problems in Academic Research. American Scientist 81: 542.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Tarnow, E. (1999) The Authorship List in Science: Junior Physicists’ Perceptions of Who Appears and Why. Science and Engineering Ethics 5(1): 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    National Science Foundation Inspector General’s Office. (1996) Semiannual Report to the Congress: Number 14; October 1, 1995–March 31, 1996. Washington, DC.

  24. 24.

    National Science Foundation Inspector General’s Office. (1996) Semiannual Report to the Congress: Number 15; April 1, 1996–September 30, 1996. Washington, DC.

  25. 25.

    Goodstein, D. (1996) Conduct and Misconduct in Science, in: Gross, P., Levitt, N., and Lewis, M. eds. The Flight from Science and Reason. Vol. 775 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The New York Academy of Sciences, New York. pp. 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lubalin, J.S., Matheson, J.L., and Ardini, M.E. (1996) Survey of Accused but Exonerated Individuals in Research Misconduct Case. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kevles, D.J. (1996) The Assault on David Baltimore. The New Yorker, May 27 1996, pp. 94–109.

  28. 28.

    Beardsley, T. (1996) Thereza Imanishi-Kari: Starting with a Clean Slate. Scientific American 275(5): 50–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Office of Research Integrity. (1996), Administrative Actions: Range, Rationale, Implementation Described. ORI Newsletter 4(2). http://phs.os.dhhs.vog/phs/ori/newsltr/vo4no2.html

  30. 30.

    Beck, W., Donahue, D., Jull, A., Burr, G., Broecker, W., Bonani, G., Hajdas, I., and Malotki, E. (1998) Ambiguities in Direct Dating of Rock Surfaces Using Radiocarbon Measurements. Science 280(5372): 2132–2139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Dalton, R. (1998) Dating in Doubt as Researcher is Probed. Nature 392: 218–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Francis, S. (1999) Developing a Common Federal Definition of Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 262–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to James J. Dooley.

Additional information

Disclaimer: The authors are grateful for the support for conduct of this research provided by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and were formed and expressed without reference to positions taken by DOE or the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The views of the authors are not intended either to reflect or imply positions of DOE or PNNL.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dooley, J.J., Kerch, H.M. Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists. SCI ENG ETHICS 6, 109–121 (2000).

Download citation


  • Scientific misconduct
  • physical sciences
  • and public policy