References

1 Office of Research Integrity. A Research Conference on Research Integrity. 18-20 November 2000, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

2 Rennie D (ed), Mark, Dupe, Patsy, Accessory, Weasel, Flatfoot. Presentation before the Conference on Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication. October 1988, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. In: Ethics and policy in scientific publication, Washington: CBE, Inc., 1990.

3 Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President. Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register 6 December 2000, pp. 76260-4. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-30852-filed (accessed 10 February 2001).

4 Rennie D. Why is action needed? Joint Consensus Conference on Misconduct in Biomedical Research. Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 28 October 1999.

5 Joint Consensus Conference on Misconduct in Biomedical Research Statement. 28-29 October 1999. www.rcpe.ac.uk/esd/consensus/misconduct_00.html

6 Farthing M, Horton R, Smith R. UK's failure to act on research misconduct. Lancet 2000; 356:2030.

7 Fraud in Biomedical Research. 1 April 1981, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight. (Statement of Dr Philip Handler, President of the National Academy of Sciences, P10-14.)

8 Fraud in Biomedical Research. 1 April 1981, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight. P24.

9 Rennie D, Gunsalus CK. Scientific misconduct. New definition, procedures and office -perhaps a new leaf. JAMA 1993;269:915-17.

10 Public Health Service. Responsibilities of awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science: final rule. Federal Register 1989;54: 32446-51.

11 Mishkin B.The investigation of scientific misconduct: some observations and suggestions. New Biologist 1991;3:821-3.

12 Integrity and misconduct in research. Report of the Commission on Research Integrity* to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the House Committee on Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 3 November 1995. http://gopher.faseb.org/opar/cri.html (accessed 28 January 2001) (*Ryan Commission).

13 Goodman B. Scientists are split over finding of Research Integrity Commission. The Scientist (22 January) 1996:1.

14 Kaiser J. Commission proposes new definition of misconduct. Science. 1995;269:1811.

15 Ralph A. Bradshaw to Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. 4 January 1996: P1.

16 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. Responsible science: ensuring the integrity of the research process Vols 1 and 2. Washington: National Academy Press, 1992.

17 Letter from the National Academy of Sciences Council to William Raub. 15 March 1996.

18 Ryan KJ. Scientific misconduct in perspective: the need to improve accountability. Chronicle for Higher Education 19 July 1997: B1.

19 Gunsalus CK. Institutional structure to ensure research integrity. Academic Medicine 1993;68(9):(Suppl.).

20 Gunsalus CK. Preventing the need for whistleblowing: practical advice for university administrators. Science and Engineering Ethics (Opragen) 1998;4:51-64.

21 Gunsalus CK. How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards. Science and Engineering Ethics (Opragen) 1998;4:75-94.

22 Selsky A. Houston Chronicle Saturday 1 March 1997.

3: Pay cheques on a Saturday night: the changing politics and bureaucracy of research integrity in the United States

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment