Misconduct in Science: Should Its Definition Include Mischievous or Improper Allegations?

Abstract

R ECENT DEBATE in the United States on misconduct in science has focused on two main points: the definition of misconduct, and the protection of whistle-blowers -those who sound the alarm about misdeeds of colleagues. The National Academy of Sciences argues that an unambiguous definition of misconduct should be based on fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reporting (National Academy of Sciences, 1992: 27). Buzzelli (1993: 584) suggests that the definition used by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health should also include other serious deviations from accepted research practices so that it covers such things as misuse of funds, sexual harassment, vandalism or sabotage of experiments, and violation of exclusionary agreements. Schachman (1993) argues against the inclusion of other serious deviations from accepted research practices in the definition of misconduct because it may impede scientific research. Marks (1993: 38 1) adds to the list of ethical breaches that not subsumed by fraud but are of a piece with it, such as the writing of review articles that promote discoveries made by firms in which the author holds stock. A surprising feature of the debate is that the plight of the accused is not considered to be an issue. Marks (1993) mentions it in passing when he states that the burden of proof is on the original investigator, not on the critic. The Office of Research Integrity (1993) believes that making a good faith allegation of scientific misconduct is protected under Federal law. I believe that the debate on misconduct must include the possibility that individuals will make accusations in bad faith. Individuals may make improper accusations by using inappropriate venues for airing their views, without providing for the right of reply of those accused. More seriously, a mischievous accusation is a deliberate, malicious attempt to confound, upset, or threaten the research of competitors in the race for scientific funds and recognition.