Ferreting out fraud: The Nordic track.
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.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||investigating scientific misconduct|
|Article Type:||Brief Article|
|Date:||Jul 31, 1999|
|Previous Article:||More on DOE's security vulnerabilities.|
|Next Article:||Congress loses valued science ally.|