DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrity and Misconduct in Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrity and Misconduct in Research Integrity and Misconduct in Research Report of the Commission on Research Integrity To the Secretary of Health and Human Services The House Committee on Commerce The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Commission on Research Integrity Membership Kenneth J. Ryan, M.D., Chair Distinguished Kate Macy Ladd Professor Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School, and Chairman, Ethics Committee Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, MA Carol A. Aschenbrener, M.D. Drummond Rennie, M.D. Chancellor, Deputy Editor (West), University of Nebraska Journal of the American Medical Association, Medical Center Chicago, IL, Omaha, NE and Adjunct Professor of Medicine, Institute for Health Policy Studies Carolyn Whitfield Broome, Ph.D. University of California, Associate Professor, San Francisco, CA Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Howard University Priscilla A. Schaffer, Ph.D. College of Medicine Professor, Washington, DC Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics Harvard Medical School Eugene H. Cota-Robles, Ph.D. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Professor Emeritus, Biology Boston, MA University of California, Santa Cruz, CA S. Andrew Schaffer, Esq. Senior Vice President and General Counsel, and Thomas M. Devine, Esq. Adjunct Professor of Law Legal Director, New York University Government Accountability Project New York, NY Washington, DC Judith P. Swazey, Ph.D. Linda L. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D. President, Assistant Director, The Acadia Institute Division of Medical Ethics Bar Harbor, ME Harvard Medical School Boston, MA Staff C. K. Gunsalus, J.D. Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Henrietta D. Hyatt-Knorr, M.A. University of Illinois, Executive Secretary Urbana-Champaign, IL Rockville, MD Karl J. Hittelman, Ph.D. Anne H. Rosenfeld Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs Science Writer University of California, Rockville, MD San Francisco, CA ii Letters of Transmittal On November 3, 1995, Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, Chair of the Commission on Research Integrity, sent the following message to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to the Chairs of the House Committee on Commerce and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources: On behalf of the Commission on Research Integrity, I am pleased to transmit our final report and recommendations: Integrity and Misconduct in Research. The Commission's mandate was established in Section 162 of Public Law 103-43, the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, in reaction to continuing misconduct in research and retaliation against whistleblowers in spite of federal regulations existing since 1989 and more than a dozen congressional hearings. According to the Commission charter, we were asked to consider: a new definition of research misconduct; an assurance process for institutional compliance with HHS regulation; mechanisms by which to respond to and oversee related administrative functions and investigations; and development of a regulation to protect whistleblowers. In fulfilling its mandate, the Commission held a total of 11 meetings open to the public in the Washington area and 4 regional hearings on university campuses in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Alabama. The Commission proved to be an effective forum for soliciting testimony on research integrity from all affected constituencies, including scientists, whistleblowers, attorneys, institutions, scientific organizations, the press, interested citizens, and federal officials. We have listened and deliberated carefully based on the extraordinary outpouring of commentary on the issues. We believe the recommendations unanimously supported by the Commission are realistic and balance the interests of the Federal Government, research institutions, scientists, and the public. We believe that the individual scientists and their research institutions and societies bear the primary responsibility for preserving integrity and dealing with misconduct when it occurs. We are not recommending a bigger federal role, only a more effective one. The creation and functioning of the Commission gave fresh expression and hope to many disillusioned scientists and whistleblowers that their voices could be heard and might make a difference in advancing the cause of scientific integrity and public trust. It is for this reason that the Commission urges that an independent oversight review body with a membership like the Commission's be created to periodically conduct hearings and review regulations and policies that affect federally funded biomedical and behavioral research. The Commission also hopes that the resources needed for effective oversight and timely disposition of investigations be carefully considered. We appreciate the opportunity to have served on this task, which is so important to the public and the scientific community. iii Acknowledgments The Commission on Research Integrity is indebted to the many individuals and institutions who have helped it fulfill its mission. We are grateful to the following consultants for the knowledge and expertise they shared with the Commission: Stephanie J. Bird, Ph.D., Cambridge, MA; Louis M. Guenin, J.D., Boston, MA; David H. Guston, Ph.D., New Brunswick, NJ; and Stephen E. Toulmin, Ph.D., Los Angeles, CA. We give special thanks to Dr. Lyle Bivens, DHHS, and Dr. Donald Buzzelli, NSF, for their dedication and untiring support of the Commission. We are also indebted to the following DHHS employees for sharing professional skills that have immeasurably enhanced the effectiveness and efficiency of our work: Ms. Elaine Alvarez de Benavides, Ms. Doris Campos-Infantino, Ms. Hilda Goldstein, Mr. Chris McNickle, Ms. Maria Mone, Ms. Karen Patrias, Ms. Catherine West, and Andrea Selzer, Esq., as well as Mr. George Getsinger of CASET Associates. Our thanks are extended as well to the four universities that graciously offered to host the Commission's regional meetings: De Paul University, Chicago, IL; Harvard University, Boston, MA; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; and University of California, San Francisco, CA. We also deeply appreciate the contributions of all witnesses who generously shared experience, expertise, and advice with the Commission, often at considerable personal expense. The Commission would especially like to acknowledge the extraordinary contributions of its Executive Secretary Henrietta Hyatt-Knorr and science writer Anne Rosenfeld in the organization and conduct of our meetings and the development of this report. iv Contents LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 A. Promoting and Maintaining Research Integrity: A Shared Responsibility 5 B. Definition of Research Misconduct and Other Professional Misconduct 6 1. Introduction 6 2. Recommendation 13 3. Uniform Federal Definition 15 4. Recommendation 15 C. Education and Standards for Research Integrity 15 1. Role of Research Institutions and the Federal Government 15 2. Role of Professional Societies and Codes of Ethics 19 D. Responsible Whistleblowing 21 E. Administrative Processes and Investigations in Research Misconduct 24 1. Structures and Procedures of Research Institutions 24 2. Federal Structures and Procedures 26 F. Summary of Recommendations 33 APPENDICES A. Commission Charter 42 B. Commission Meetings/Hearings 45 C. Structure and Function of the DHHS Office of Research Integrity 47 D. Commentary on Offenses Described in Definition of "Research Misconduct" 50 E. Draft Whistleblower Protection Guidelines 56 F. Abbreviations 68 v This is a blank page. vi Executive Summary Commission on Research Integrity: Origins and Charge Congress created the Commission on Research Integrity in 1993 in response to continuing controversy concerning the apparent inability of the scientific community and the Federal Government to deal adequately with misconduct in scientific research. The Commission's task was to advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Congress about ways to improve the Public Health Service (PHS) response to misconduct in biomedical and behavioral research receiving PHS funding. Issues to be addressed included: 1) the definition of research misconduct; 2) the assurance process for research institutions' compliance with DHHS regulations; 3) the administrative processes of institutions and the PHS for dealing with allegations of misconduct; 4) and the development of a regulation to protect whistleblowers. The Commission's 12 members, chaired by Dr. Kenneth Ryan of Harvard University Medical School, were selected to include scientists, research misconduct investigators, administrators of research institutions, attorneys, and ethicists. The Commission held public meetings monthly from June 1994 through October 1995, primarily in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area; regional public hearings were held in San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and Birmingham. These meetings and hearings elicited a range of opinion and experience regarding weaknesses in current institutional and federal policies and practices related to research misconduct, as well as suggestions for improvement. The Commission also consulted informally with relevant non-PHS federal agencies, and with professional and scientific organizations. Guiding Considerations and Principles In its deliberations, the Commission sought to develop a fair, balanced, and realistic response to its charge, while taking into account the many parties potentially affected
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Request for Information to Improve Federal Scientific Integrity Policies (86 FR 34064)
    July 27, 2021 Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President Eisenhower Executive Office Building 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20504 Submitted electronically to [email protected] Re: Request for Information to Improve Federal Scientific Integrity Policies (86 FR 34064) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), collectively the “Associations,” appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to help improve the effectiveness of Federal scientific integrity policies in enhancing public trust in science. The Associations strongly support the efforts of the White House in addressing issues of federal scientific integrity and public trust in science. We further appreciate the swift issuance of the Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking and establishment of the Scientific Integrity Task Force. These actions seek to formalize and standardize scientific integrity through an all-of-government approach. Protecting the integrity of science and ensuring the use of evidence in policymaking should be a national priority across administrations. These efforts come at a critical time for the United States. Public trust in federal science has been shaken by anti-science rhetoric, lack of transparency, and questions about the integrity of science conducted and supported by the federal government. At the same time, building and maintaining trust in this science has never been more important as we confront continuing threats, including a global pandemic and climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy on Scientific Integrity
    وزارة اﻟﺘﻌﻠﯿﻢ MINISTRY OF EDUCATION ﺟـﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺪﻣـﺎم UNIVERSITY OF DAMMAM اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL Policy on Scientific Integrity Part I Rules & Regulations Policy on Scientific Integrity 2 Table of Contents Article Pages # Introduction 4 Definition of Scientific Misconduct in Research & 4 Scientific Studies General Rules of Scientific Integrity 5 Prevention of Scientific Misconduct in Research & 10 Scientific Studies Violations of Scientific Integrity 11 Management of Possible Scientific Misconduct 13 Record Retention 14 Applicability 15 General Definitions 15 Acknowledgements 22 Appendices 22 NSTIP Rules of Scientific Integrity 22 3 Policy on Scientific Integrity 1. Introduction The University of Dammam (UOD) espouses to maintain the highest standards of research ethics and scientific integrity. To that end, UOD has developed a series of policies and associated initiatives to promote a culture of scientific integrity and research ethics in the conduct of all aspects of its research mission. This commitment includes programs to educate all institutional members of such standards and to monitor the conduct of all scientific endeavors. This Policy for Scientific Integrity consists of four parts. They are: Part I: Rules and Regulations Part II: Rules for Scientific Publications, Authorship and Copyrights Part III: Research Conflict of Commitment and Conflict of Interest Part IV: Procedures for Evaluation and Management of Scientific Misconduct and Research Conflict of Commitment & Conflict of Interest In their collective, these parts articulate the institutional guidelines for proper scientific conduct and provides a detailed description of the institution’s management of any potential aberration to that standard. 2. Definition of Misconduct in Scientific Research Integrity Misconduct in research and scientific studies means fabrication, falsification, and/or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Technology Issues in the 117Th Congress
    Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress May 5, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46787 SUMMARY R46787 Science and Technology Issues in the 117th May 5, 2021 Congress Frank Gottron, The federal government supports scientific and technological advancement directly by funding Coordinator and performing research and development, and indirectly by creating and maintaining policies Specialist in Science and that encourage private sector efforts. Additionally, the federal government regulates many Technology Policy aspects of S&T activities. This report briefly outlines a key set of science and technology policy th issues that may come before the 117 Congress. Brian E. Humphreys, Coordinator Many of these issues carry over from previous Congresses, and represent areas of continuing Analyst in Science and Member interest. Examples include policies on taxation, trade, intellectual property, Technology Policy commercialization of basic scientific research and other overarching issues that affect scientific and technological progress. Other issues may represent new or rapidly evolving areas affected by the threats of pandemic diseases, climate change, and malicious cyber activities, among others. Examples covered in this report include infectious disease modeling and forecasting, digital contact tracing and digital exposure notification, hydrogen pipelines, and expansion of emerging information and communications technologies such as 5G. These and other S&T-related issues that may come before the 117th Congress are grouped into 10 categories. Overarching S&T Policy Issues, Agriculture, Biotechnology and Biomedical Research and Development, Climate Change and Water, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Information Technology, Physical and Material Sciences, and Space. Each of these categories includes concise analysis of multiple policy issues.
    [Show full text]
  • ENERI Manual Research Integrity and Ethics
    ENERI Deliverable D3.1 Appendix: Manual ENERI Manual Research Integrity and Ethics Bart Penders | David Shaw | Peter Lutz | David Townend Lloyd Akrong | Olga Zvonareva Maastricht University 1 Table of Contents Introduction: the manual to the manual .................................................................................................. 3 It’s alive .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Research Integrity ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Conceptual issues ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.1.1. The Researcher in Society - towards the “virtuous researcher” ........................................... 5 1.1.2 Research, Evidence and Truth? ............................................................................................. 9 1.1.3 Detrimental Research Practices and Research Misconduct ................................................. 12 1.1.4 Social Responsibility .......................................................................................................... 14 1.2. Practical Issues .......................................................................................................................... 18 1.2.1. Plagiarism ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Integrity
    Scientific Integrity SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY The Rules of Academic Research by Kees Schuyt Translated by Kristen Gehrman LEIDEN UNIVERSITY PRESS Translation: Kristen Gehrman Cover design: Geert de Koning Lay-out: Friedemann bvba ISBN 978 90 8728 230 1 e-ISBN 978 94 0060 218 2 (PDF) e-ISBN 978 94 0060 219 9 (ePUB) nur 737, 738 © Kees Schuyt / Leiden University Press, 2019 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/4.0/. This book is distributed in North America by the University of Chicago Press www.press.uchicago.edu. Table of contents Foreword 7 Introduction 9 Chapter 1 Scientific integrity: an exploration of an elusive concept 13 1.1 Discredited by fraud 13 1.2 Integrity as a standard linked to one’s position 15 1.3 Integrity as a standard for one’s own behavior 18 1.4 Scientific values and the basic standards of integrity 21 1.5 Scientific integrity in practice: an initial exploration 25 Chapter 2 The codification of behavioral standards for scientific research 31 2.1 Muddying the waters of science: the Stapel affair 31 2.2 Some examples of fraud 32 2.3 Four conceptual distinctions 35 2.4 The emergence of norms in scientific practice 36 2.5 A case study: the codification of norms in the Netherlands 41 2.6 The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice of 2004/2012/2014 45 2.7 The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity of 2018 49 Chapter 3 Scientific fraud: lessons from history
    [Show full text]
  • Open-Ended Responses
    Progress and Problems: Government Scientists Report on Scientific Integrity at Four Agencies Appendix D: Open-ended Responses Below are all open-ended responses received on the survey. Responses have not been edited for grammar or spelling errors. They are displayed as respondents wrote them, with identifying information redacted to protect anonymity. In some cases, large portions of responses had to be concealed to protect the identities of respondents. Question 39. How do you think the mission of the [AGENCY] and the integrity of the scientific work produced by the [AGENCY] could best be improved? The below open-ended responses are sorted by agency and categorized by subject, in order of frequency. The percentages in each category represent the proportion of coded text on that topic, rather than the proportion of respondents. CDC Twenty-six percent (467) of the 1,764 CDC survey respondents provided written responses. Management and Leadership (Mentioned in 26% of coded responses) Reduce/relax the beaurocratic procedures especially regarding publication of scientific work As a leading federal government agency, CDC should pay more attention to avoid nepotism within the same unit (branch or maybe division). This is especially a problem in the leadership level. It created unfair situation to other employee. People who enjoy these advantage often tend to chose their own favorite colleagues in important tasks, or assignments. This in turns created more opportunities to promote people of their own circle. The best man/woman for the particular task could therefore sacrifice because of this established culture of nepotism. OMB is a pain in the ass - the Paperwork Reduction Act is a joke.
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update
    CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update Editorial Policy Committee (2011-2012) www.CouncilScienceEditors.org CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update Editorial Policy Committee (2011-2012) www.CounsilScienceEditors.org Kristi Overgaard (Chair) Daniel Salsbury American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Patricia Baskin Mary Scheetz American Academy of Neurology Research Integrity Consulting, LLC Elizabeth Blalock Diane Scott-Lichter Journal of Investigative Dermatology American Association for Cancer Research Howard Browman Gene P. Snyder Institute of Marine Research, Storebø, Norway Envision Pharma Bruce Dancik Anna Trudgett NRC Research Press, University of Alberta American Society of Hematology Wim D’Haeze Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Editorial Policy Committee (2008-2009) Robert L. Edsall Heather Goodell (Chair) American Academy of Family Physicians American Heart Association Jill Filler Elizabeth Blalock American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Journal of Investigative Dermatology Heather Goodell Bruce Dancik American Heart Association NRC Research Press, University of Alberta Angela Hartley Robert L. Edsall Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses American Academy of Family Physicians Kenneth Kornfield Jill Filler American Society of Clinical Neurology American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Christine Laine Angela Hartley
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking Lessons from the Past Two Administrations and What’S at Stake Under the Trump Administration
    Preserving Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking Lessons from the Past Two Administrations and What’s at Stake under the Trump Administration {cSD Cente rfor Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists Preserving Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking Lessons from the Past Two Administrations and What’s at Stake under the Trump Administration Gretchen Goldman Genna Reed Michael Halpern Charise Johnson Emily Berman Yogin Kothari Andrew Rosenberg January 2017 © 2017 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Gretchen Goldman is the research director in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Genna Reed is the science and policy ana- lyst in the Center. Michael Halpern is the deputy director of the Center. Charise Johnson is the research associate in the Center. Emily Berman is the research as- sistant in the Center. Yogin Kothari is the Washington representative in the Center. Andrew Rosenberg is the director of the Center. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. The Center for Science and Democracy at UCS works to strengthen American democracy by advancing the essential role of science, evidence-based decisionmaking, and constructive debate as a means to im- prove the health, security, and prosperity of all people. More information about UCS and the Center for Science and Democracy is avail- able on the UCS website: www.ucsusa.org This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/ PreservingScientificIntegrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric Across Borders
    DEMO RHETORIC ACROSS BORDERS features twenty-one essays and six excerpts from the “In Conversation” panels convened at the sixteenth Biennial Rhetoric Society of America (RSA) Conference. Participants engaged the conference theme of “Border RHETORIC RHETORIC Rhetorics” in ways that not only reinvigorated the border as a conceptual metaphor but also challenged boundaries within rhetorical scholarship. Although the volume includes only a select representation of the work presented at the conference, each section features the diverse perspectives offered in Composition ACROSS and Communication. The first section,Between Materiality and Rhetoric, explores points of interface between rhetoric and materiality. Working from diverse periods and disciplinary orientations, the authors illuminate how attending to the mutuality between materiality and rhetoric engenders a productive revision and/or expansion of our approaches to essential aspects of rhetorical inquiry. The second section,Crossing ACR BORDERS Cultures: Refiguring Audience, Author, Text, and Borders, explores how various forms of translation, migration, and liminality can refigure our understanding of the interplay between audience, author, and text. Essays in the third section, Remapping the Political, OSS examine the diverse genres that broaden our understanding of the res publica and the tactics employed to circumscribe politics. In the fourth section, Contesting Boundaries: Science, Technology, and Nature, authors consider how shifting notions of expertise and competing epistemologies alter our conceptions of science and the environment. The selected essays in the final section,Teaching Across Divides, explore the different BORDERS boundaries that shape teaching in rhetoric and composition. Here, the authors reflect on the challenges and rewards gained by explicitly engaging the borders and boundary- work that often remains invisible to our students.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Decision Making During Pregnancy: Risk Consideration in Clinical Practice and Research
    Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 3-22-2016 12:00 AM Informed Decision Making During Pregnancy: Risk Consideration in Clinical Practice and Research Kyoko Wada The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Marilyn Evans The University of Western Ontario Joint Supervisor Jeff Nisker The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Health and Rehabilitation Sciences A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Kyoko Wada 2016 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Medical Education Commons Recommended Citation Wada, Kyoko, "Informed Decision Making During Pregnancy: Risk Consideration in Clinical Practice and Research" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3636. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/3636 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract This thesis addressed a cluster of issues related to risk and the pregnant woman’s decision making in clinical practice and research. In terms of clinical practice, the minimal risk concept - a low risk standard codified in research ethics regulations - was applied to clinicians’ information provision to the patient. As clinicians must discuss a variety of health risks, minimal risk standards may be useful as a threshold to demarcate risks that clinicians should discuss with the patient. Application of minimal risk standards to risk factors in pregnancy showed the usefulness and limitations of these standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Integrity
    Scientific integrity Andrea Saltelli Open Evidence Research, Open University of Catalonia INPhINIT PhD training sessions, Virtual, CaixaForum, April 9, 2021 Where to find this talk: www.andreasaltelli.eu Definition of integrity 1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility 2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness 3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness Definition of integrity 1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility The ethos of open science: CUDOS, by R.K. Merton, a system of universal norms Robert K. Merton R. Merton, The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, 1973. Communalism - the common ownership of scientific discoveries, according to which scientists give up intellectual property rights in exchange for recognition and esteem (Merton actually used the term Communism, but had this notion of communalism in mind, not Marxism); Universalism - according to which claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, or nationality; Disinterestedness - according to which scientists are rewarded for acting in ways that outwardly appear to be selfless; Organized Skepticism - all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny. Go to https://calteches.library.calt ech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm or buy the book … read Caltex’s speech (1974) of Richard Feynman about what organized scepticism is about
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Integrity Policies at Key Federal Agencies
    A QUICK GUIDE Scientific Integrity Policies at Key Federal Agencies What federal scientists should know and do if they sense political interference with their research. Brought to you by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund Table of Contents Introduction 2 Scientific Integrity Policies at a Glance 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 7 Department of Defense (DOD) 19 Department of Energy (DOE) 27 Department of the Interior (DOI) 37 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 49 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 59 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 71 National Science Foundation (NSF) 83 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 95 Acknowledgments 108 Introduction This guide covers the scientific integrity policies of nine federal agencies. It will help researchers employed by these agencies understand and navigate the process of filing a scientific integrity complaint. Scientific Integrity at Federal Agencies Scientific integrity principles are indispensable to the missions and the functions of science-related agencies in the United States. Their ability to conduct sound, unbiased scientific research is essential to maintaining public trust in these agencies. Following a 2009 memorandum issued by President Obama and a 2010 memorandum issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, many agencies adopted formal scientific integrity policies intended to ensure that the science these agencies rely on for decision-making is free from fraud, fabrication, and plagiarism. Scientific integrity policies help ensure that the work of agency scientists is communicated in a transparent and timely manner to the public and decision-makers. The policies can protect federal scientists from censorship and intimidation, and from having their work altered or ignored for political reasons.
    [Show full text]