This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Debra M. Parrish, JD

JAMA. 1997;277(16):1315-1319.

Abstract
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.

Author Affiliations
From the law firm of Titus & McConomy, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Footnotes
Reprints: Debra M. Parrish, JD, Titus & McConomy, 4 Gateway Center, 20th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1207.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Expert medical testimony: Responsibilities of medical societies
McAbee and Freeman
Neurology 2005;65:337-337.
FULL TEXT  

Dealing with research misconduct in the United Kingdom • An American perspective on research integrity • Conduct unbecoming---the MRC's approach • An editor's response to fraudsters • Deception: difficulties and initiatives • Honest advice from Denmark
Rennie et al.
BMJ 1998;316:1726-1733.
FULL TEXT  

The Scientific Misconduct Process: A Scientist's View From the Inside
Youngner
JAMA 1998;279:62-64.
FULL TEXT