Abstract
Nearly two decades of debate have not settled the definition of research misconduct. The literature provides four explanatory frameworks for misconduct. The paper examines these frameworks and maps them onto efforts by the U.S. Public Health Service to define research misconduct and subsequent responses to these efforts by the scientific community. The changing frameworks suggest that closure will not be achieved without an authoritative effort, which may occur through the Research Integrity Panel’s recent attempt to create a government-wide definition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gilbert, G.N. & Mulkay, M. (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Babbage, C. (1989 [1830]). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England and on Some of its Causes, in: Kelly, M. C., (ed.) The Works of Charles Babbage, vol. 7. Pickering, London.
Sigma Xi (1986). Honor in Science. Sigma Xi, New Haven, CT.
National Academy of Sciences (1989) On Being a Scientist. Committee on the Conduct of Science, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Merton, R.K. (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, in: N. W. Storer (ed.), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Watson, J.D. (1963) The Double Helix. Atheneum, New York.
Weinstein, D. (1979) Fraud in science. Social Science Quarterly 59: 639–652.
Mitroff, I.I. (1974) The Subjective Side of Science: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Psychology of the Apollo Moon Scientists, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Ziman, J. (1990) Research as a career, In: Cozzens, S.E., Healey, P., Rip, A., & Ziman, J. (eds.), The Research System in Transition. NATO ASI Series D, vol. 57. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp. 345–359.
Zuckerman, H. (1984) Norms and deviant behavior in science. Science, Technology, and Human Values 9: 7–13.
Zuckerman, H. (1977) Deviant behavior and social control in science, in: Sagarin, E. (ed.) Deviance and Social Change, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 87–138.
Schmaus, W. (1983) Fraud and the norms of science. Science, Technology, and Human Values 8: 12–22.
U.S. Congress (1981) Fraud in Biomedical Research. Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, House Committee on Science and Technology. 97th Cong., 1st sess. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Price, A. (1994) Definitions and boundaries of research misconduct. Journal of Higher Education 65: 286–297.
Buzzelli, D. E. (1993) The definition of misconduct in science: a view from NSF. Science 259: 584.
Department of Health and Human Services (1980) Debarment and suspension from eligibility for financial assistance. Federal Register 45: 67262–67269.
Olswang, S. G. & Lee, B. A. (1984) Scientific misconduct: institutional procedures and due process considerations. Journal of College and University Law 11: 51–63.
Public Health Service (1985) Policies and procedures for dealing with possible misconduct in science. October draft, Mimeo.
National Institutes of Health (1986) Policies and procedures for dealing with possible misconduct in science. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 15: 1–37.
Public Health Service (1988) Announcement of development of regulations protecting against scientific fraud or misconduct; request for comments. Federal Register 53: 36344–36347.
Andersen, R.M. (1988) The federal government’s role in regulating misconduct in scientific and technological research. The Journal of Law & Technology 3: 121–148.
Public Health Service (1989) Responsibilities of awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 18: 1–10.
Rhoades, L.J. (1989) Analysis of responses to ANPRM on developing regulations protecting against scientific fraud and misconduct. Office of Scientific Inegrity Review. Mimeo.
National Academy of Sciences (1992) Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, vol. 1. Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Institute of Medicine (1989) The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences. Committee on the Responsible Conduct of Research. Division of Health Sciences Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Public Health Service (1991) “Transcript.” Advisory Committee on Scientific Integrity. C.A.S.E.T. Associates, Bethesda.
Office of Research Integrity (1993) DAB confirms HHS authority to investigate scientific misconduct. ORI Newsletter 1(4): 5.
Public Health Service (1992) Opportunity for a hearing on Office of Research Integrity scientific misconduct findings. Federal Register 57: 53125–53126.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health (1994) Office of Research Integrity: Annual Report, 1993. Public Health Service, OASH, Washington, DC.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (1995) Integrity and Misconduct in Research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. Office of the Secretary, Office of Research Integrity, DHHS, Rockville, MD.
Francis, S. (1998) Developing a common federal definition of research misconduct. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Philadelphia, 17 February.
Porter, J.P. & Dustira, A.K. (1993) Policy development lessons from two federal initiatives: protecting human research subjects and handling misconduct in science. Academic Medicine 68: S51-S55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guston, D.H. Changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. government’s attempt to define research misconduct. SCI ENG ETHICS 5, 137–154 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0002-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0002-0