Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 555–563 | Cite as

Commentary: Legacy of the Commission on Research Integrity

  • Barbara K. RedmanEmail author


20 years ago, the Report of the Commission on Research Integrity (also known as the Ryan Commission after its chair) was submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and to House and Senate Committees. As directed in enabling legislation, the Commission had provided recommendations on a new definition of research misconduct, oversight of scientific practices, and development of a regulation to protect whistleblowers. Reflecting the ethos of the time, the Commission recommended that institutions receiving Public Health Service research funding should provide oversight of all but the most egregious misconduct. The suggested definition of research misconduct was organized around misappropriation, interference and misrepresentation, which would have addressed collaborative/authorship disputes and sabotage in scientific laboratories, both of which remain unaddressed in current policy. The Commission also recommended the Whistleblower Bill of Rights and Responsibilities which would have authorized remedies for whistleblowers who experienced retaliation and sanctions against retaliators. Response from the scientific community was highly critical, and none of the Commission’s recommendations was accepted. No new body has examined issues within the Commission’s charge, there has been no significant Congressional or public pressure to do so, institutions have not been able to sustain standards that would have avoided current concerns about bias and irreproducibility in research, and there is still no entity in science capable of addressing issues assigned to the Commission and other urgent issues.


Research misconduct Research ethics Whistleblowers Research regulation 



Thanks to Tom Devine, a member of the Commission, for advice and for sharing materials from its public hearings.


  1. Alberts, B., et al. (2015). Self-correction in science at work. Science, 348(6242), 1420–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailar, J. (1995). The real threats to the integrity of science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 41(32), B1–3.Google Scholar
  3. Code of Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 93.103 2005.Google Scholar
  4. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (forthcoming). The integrity of science. Accessed 12/18/15.
  5. Devine, T. (1995). To ensure accountability, a whistleblowers’ bill of rights. The Scientist, 9(10), 11–12.Google Scholar
  6. Enserink, M. (2014). Sabotaged scientist sues Yale and her lab chief. Science, 343, 1065–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ethics Resource Center (2012). Retaliation: When whistleblowers become victims. Accessed 12/19/15.
  8. Francis, S. (1999). Developing a federal policy on research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenberg, M. (2011). For whom the whistle blows, RAND Center for Corporate Ethics and Governance. Accessed 8/5/15.Google Scholar
  10. Handling Misconduct NPRM-Regulation, 65 Fed Reg 70830 and Fed Reg 82972 (Nov 28, 2000). May be obtained on ORI’s web site. Accessed 8/5/15.Google Scholar
  11. Institute of Medicine. (1989). The responsible conduct of research in the health sciences: Report of a workshop. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Institute of Medicine. (2015). Sharing clinical trial data; Maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ioannidis, J. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ioannidis, J. (2014). How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine, 11(10), e1001747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klintworth, G. (2014). Giants, crooks and jerks in science. Bloomington: XLibris Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kohn, S. M. (2011). The whistleblower’s handbook. Guilford: Lyons Press.Google Scholar
  17. Moberly, R. (2012). Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower provisions: Ten years later. South Carolina Law Review, 64, 1–54.Google Scholar
  18. National Academy of Science Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (1992). Responsible science. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rasmussen, L. (2014). The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Redman, B. K. (2015). Are the biomedical sciences sliding toward institutional corruption? And why didn’t we notice it? Edmond J. Safra Working Paper no. 59. Harvard University.Google Scholar
  21. Redman, B. K., & Merz, J. F. (2008). Scientific misconduct; Do the punishments fit the crime? Science, 321(5890), 775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. (1995). Integrity and Misconduct in Research, USDHHS.Google Scholar
  23. Resnik, D. B., et al. (2015). Research misconduct definitions adopted by US research institutions. Accountability in Research, 22, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spilling the beans (2015). The Economist, pp. 62–63.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2013). Annual report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank whistleblower program, SEC website. Accessed 12/19/15.Google Scholar
  26. Wadman, M. (1996a). “Unrealistic” misconduct plans under fire. Nature, 381, 263.Google Scholar
  27. Wadman, M. (1996b). Hostile reception to US misconduct report. Nature, 38, 639.Google Scholar
  28. Whitbeck, C. (1995). Trustworthy research—An editorial introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Medical EthicsNYU Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations