Misconduct

The defense counsel present disclosed that they would file an answer charging the prosecution with misconduct because we had "searched Alt s house without permission of the court."... 

Within these examples are unethical acts, coercion, conflicts of interest, and misrepresen-tahon. Conflicts of inferest are not limited to the rewards and stock options of investigators they involve the entire research endeavor. Recently, financial conflicts of interest in medical research along with widely publicized episodes of scienhfic misconduct have been brought to the public s attention. In some episodes, researchers have been accused of falsifying or fabricahng research data on therapeutic products in which they had substantial financial inferesfs. There have now been many steps taken to keep such actions from occurring. 

One conclusion that can be drawn from this is that even the best of scientific labs and investigators can be seduced into scientific misconduct. Fortunately, such misconduct is rare in the scientific community. Another conclusion is that because the decay chain of element 118 produced the following new elements—116, as it was the result of the decay process of the nonexistent element 118, 114, 112, 110, 108, and 106— it throws suspicion on the existence of element 116. Still, many of the elements identified by the suspect decay chain have also been independently produced synthetically. 

Fraud is not limited to the investigator and his or her staff. Staff of pharmaceutical companies and institutions may alter CRTs, modify data sets, alter tables, suppress reported side effects or bias written reports. The detection of such activities, inside or outside an institution, by investigators or company staff relies on others in the same team recognising that something is suspicious. Double checking of data by colleagues and authentication of those data is the best deterrent to misconduct. 

Lock S, ed. Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research, 2nd edn. London BMJ Publishing, 1996. 

Lock S, Wells F, Farthing M, eds. Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 3rd edn. London BMJ Books, 2001. 

Chemists should remain current with developments in their field, share ideas and information, and keep accurate and complete laboratory records, maintain integrity in all conduct and publications, and give due credit to the contributions of others. Conflicts of interest and scientific misconduct, such as fabrication and plagarism, are incompatible with this Code. 

Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. Handling Misconduct Case Summaries. http //ori.dhhs.gov/html/miscon duct/arnold.asp. The only penalty levied on the guilty scientist was an order that he not apply for federal research funding for five years. It made no difference to the scientist, who decided to go to law school. 

An unfortunate footnote to this chapter in the history of the discovery of the heaviest elements is the revelation (Hofmann et al., 2002) that one of the decay chains reported by Hofmann et al. (1995a) for 269Ds was spuriously created, the result of human error or scientific misconduct. As disturbing as this finding is, it should not detract from the other correctly identified decay chains. 

Another training consideration is the detection, reporting, and handling of scientific fraud and misconduct. The emphasis of this training should be on helping staff members identify when a situation could raise suspicions of fraud... 

Inappropriate behavior in relation to misconduct. An inappropriate accusation of misconduct. Failure to report known or suspected misconduct. Withholding or destroying information relevant to a claim of misconduct. Retaliation against any person taking part in the allegation or investigation. 

Where and how do students learn about these ethics-related scientific practices Historically, for scientists in training the process has been rather learn-as-you-go. It is generally assumed that senior scientists and teachers follow a code of defensible moral behavior and that, by their example, valuable lessons are transmitted to their students. Unfortunately, these assumptions are not necessarily valid, and cases of scientific misconduct surface in the... 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources. Office of Research Integrity (September 24, 2000). Analysis of Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct. Final Report. Columbia, AID Office of Research Integrity. Also available from . 

A termination clause for breach of contract, e.g. serious misconduct, breach of confidentiality, inability to complete the contract due to extended illness. 

In rare situations, a scientist may have evidence that published material contains falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism. It is the obligation of every scientist to report such cases immediately to the editor of the journal. Institutions receiving financial support from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are required to have mechanisms in place to investigate such occurrences, and direct reporting to the appropriate institutional office may be more expedient. Accusations must be supported by fact, not suspicions, because academic misconduct is a serious matter with career-threatening implications. Unpleasant as this situation may be, it should not be ignored. 

Some environmental and worker safety laws carry not only corporate or civil but also personal criminal liability. Usually this applies only in extreme cases of willful neglect or intentional falsification of records, but it is there to put some teeth into the laws. These penalties are usually reserved for top-management levels but could apply to a rank-and-file worker if it was determined that he or she deliberately did not follow a clear procedure and that there was an intent to enforce penalties for not following the procedure. In other words, if it is management s intent to look the other way in the case of employee misconduct, then management, not the employee, is at fault and is therefore liable. 

Also in 1993, in Holmes v Hotel San Remo, the Appeals Tribunal State of Nevada Employment Security Department found that the claimant was ineligible for benefits due to discharge for misconduct violation of a known and reasonable rule. Employees were notified that the employer would comply with the Drug Free Workplace Act and random hair analysis testing would occur following a 90-day grace period. Holmes hair test indicated recent cocaine use. She was found to be ineligible for benefits. 

---