Scientific misconduct: the state's role has limits

[Guest guest]

Scientific misconduct: the state's role has limits

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6917/full/420739b_fs.html

Sir – The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has long

fostered research integrity, developed ethical codes for scientific

societies, promulgated guidelines for inquiries into allegations of

scientific misconduct, issued policies and recommendations for

dealing with financial conflicts of interest in clinical research,

and, most recently, collaborated with the Office of Research

Integrity (ORI) in educational efforts and workshops on the

responsible conduct of research. The AAMC has long recognized that

misconduct breaches the social contract underpinning academic

science and undermines a scientific establishment that sets the

standard of international excellence. Contrary to your assertion,

the AAMC strongly supports ethics training for graduate students and

postdoctoral research fellows.

In his annual address to academic leaders and the public, the AAMC

president, Jordan Cohen, stated " either we are trustworthy and

deserve the privilege of self-regulation, or we are suspect and

warrant the close scrutiny of government. " We are proud of our

record, which speaks for itself.

Your Opinion article (Nature 420, 253; 2002) mischaracterizes the

opposition expressed by the AAMC and the Federation of American

Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) to the ORI's proposed

data-collection instrument. Our objections focus on two critical

elements: first, the likelihood that the survey would result in

unusable, invalid and easily misinterpreted 'data' based on

subjective criteria and imprecise measures. One example of this is

mentioned in your editorial — asking for instances where a

researcher observed a colleague " citing an article they had not read

firsthand " . Our second objection is to the ORI's inexplicable

defiance of the settled federal definition of scientific misconduct,

which can lead only to confusion.

The crux of the issue, which you fail to comprehend, is that the

federal definition of 'scientific misconduct' is a marker for the

proper role of government in overseeing the conduct of federally

funded academic research. On this matter, the US scientific

community has consistently spoken with a single voice in arguing

that this role be circumscribed and focused on transgressions that

are reasonably unambiguous and are unacceptable across all

scientific and scholarly disciplines.

This unanimity does not imply, however, that the boundaries of

unethical scientific and professional behaviour should be so

circumscribed — quite the contrary. It is not the role of the

federal government to define or prescribe those ethical boundaries.

Rather, it is the obligation of academia and scientific societies,

and it is to stimulate and assist our member institutions to meet

that obligation that the AAMC has been so actively and demonstrably

engaged for so long.

Perhaps Nature believes that science needs a federally

sanctioned 'high church' as the final arbiter of scientific morals,

ethics and integrity. The AAMC, and, we believe, all of US science,

profoundly disagrees.

Korn

Senior Vice President, AAMC, 2450 North Street, Northwest

Washington, DC 20037, USA