Printer Friendly

Ferreting out fraud: The Nordic track.

Since 1992, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Sweden have all established federal agencies to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct. In all but 9 of their 37 completed investigations, "no dishonesty has been confirmed," according to a report in the July 3 LANCET.

In contrast to U.S. groups, which have created lists of misdeeds that constitute fraud, among the Nordic agencies, "formal definitions have never been considered critical or even feasible," according to Magne Nylenna of the Research Council of Norway in Oslo and his colleagues, who prepared the report. Instead, they find, the general Nordic criterion for dishonesty has been whether any "deviation from good scientific practice is serious or intentional." Gross negligence also qualifies as misconduct in Denmark.

In some cases where investigators found no blatant dishonesty, Nylenna's team notes, there had been some "deviation from good research practice." To deal with this, the Nordic fraud squads have evolved a policy of explicitly describing and publicly reporting such questionable activities.

"Given the great publicity research misconduct has received, there were surprisingly few cases of serious scientific misconduct," observes LANCET Editor Richard Horton in an accompanying editorial. "Yet the pressure for even greater oversight of research is increasing," he says. With researchers worldwide fearing that "excessive regulation and the threat of public witch hunts will deter investigators from doing important research," Horton notes, a researcher "backlash" is developing.
COPYRIGHT 1999 Science Service, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1999, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:investigating scientific misconduct
Publication:Science News
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:4E0SC
Date:Jul 31, 1999
Words:228
Previous Article:More on DOE's security vulnerabilities.
Next Article:Congress loses valued science ally.
Topics:


Related Articles
Baltimore case reopened.
White coats, black deeds; the new scientific method: lie, cheat, and get good PR.
NIH director faces congressional scrutiny.
NAS sizes up scientific misconduct.
Fraud panel finds researcher guilty.
Appeals panel reverses fraud finding.
Firms bid for contracts to fight Medicare fraud.
EDITORIAL TAXPAYER RIP-OFF? LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES NEED TO OVERHAUL THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION SYSTEM.
FBI cover-up artist and 9-11. (Insider Report).
Why do ethical scientists make unethical decisions?

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters