Improving the scientific misconduct hearing process
D. M. Parrish
Titus & McConomy, Pittsburgh, Pa 15222-1207, USA.
The overturning and withdrawal of several of the Office of Research
Integrity's (ORI's) findings of scientific misconduct have called its role
into question. The contested findings of scientific misconduct that have
been tried before the hearing body have been based on lengthy and expensive
ORI investigations. How could ORI have failed to prove its findings of
scientific misconduct after the commitment of substantial resources that
far exceed those devoted during institutional investigations? One reason
may be that the current hearing process makes it difficult or impossible
for ORI, institutions, or individuals to prove scientific misconduct. The
hearing process has been criticized by discouraged whistleblowers who
believe that their allegations of scientific misconduct should have been
upheld, and by the accused for the expensive and protracted nature of the
proceedings. The following article examines problems in the scientific
misconduct hearing process and suggests that the process could be improved
by letting administrative law judges, patent attorneys, and a scientific
majority decide these cases.
