You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 277 No. 16, April 23, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Commentary
 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
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Improving the Scientific Misconduct Hearing Process

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.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter 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  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1997 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.