 |
 |

Responding to Scientific Misconduct Due Process and Prevention
Barbara Mishkin, JD
JAMA. 1988;260(13):1932-1936.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
THERE is a truism in the law that "due process" consists of whatever process is due in a given situation. The greater the potential effect on an individual's reputation, freedom, or livelihood, the greater must be the due process afforded. In the realm of scientific research, more vigorous enforcement of standards by academic institutions and research facilities will require a corresponding increase in the potency of due process protection.
Academic institutions have always enjoyed considerable discretion in matters of governance. The procedures for administrative disciplinary actions are generally spelled out in faculty and student handbooks and typically do not reach the level of due process required in the courts (where criminal and civil penalties may be imposed). In fact, the US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that if adequate posttermination proceedings are available, "something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient" before terminating the employment of a faculty member at
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
Author Affiliations
Ms Mishkin is with Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC.
Footnotes
A version of this article was presented at a workshop on scientific fraud and misconduct at the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, sponsored jointly by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Bar Association, Washington, DC, Sept 18-20,1987.
Reprint requests to Hogan & Hartson, 555 13th St NW, Washington, DC, 20004-1109 (Ms Mishkin).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
|