Tougher Pursuit of Science Fraud Urged : Ethics: Three national academies call for the establishment of a review panel to identify, investigate and resolve cases of misconduct.

WASHINGTON — Suggesting that instances of scientific fraud may be significantly under-reported, three prestigious national scientific academies Wednesday called for a tougher system to identify such cases, investigate and resolve them.

To accomplish the task, the academies recommended the appointment of a national review board to oversee ethical matters and pursue allegations of fraud.

“The pressures for success are inexorable,” said Edward E. David, former science adviser to President Richard M. Nixon and chairman of the panel that compiled the report. “Personal advancement, economic survival and political advantage often are at stake, even as personal curiosity and the joy of discovery still are widespread. In this climate of mixed motivations, it is essential to act responsibly and to strengthen research ethics.”

The recommendations were contained in a report released Wednesday by the National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering and their affiliate, the Institute of Medicine. Congressionally chartered, the private organizations advise the federal government on matters of science and technology. While their proposals are not binding, they typically wield considerable influence among policy-makers.

The issue of scientific misconduct and fraud has received considerable attention in recent years because of several highly publicized cases and the manner in which they were investigated.

Among them was a controversy involving a 1986 paper in the journal Cell, in which the lead researcher was accused of making up data to support her conclusions.

The episode received considerable attention because it involved Nobel prize winner David Baltimore, who had lent his name to the paper, although he had not conducted any of the research, and who vigorously defended the researcher’s work. Ultimately, the paper was retracted and Baltimore later resigned as president of Rockefeller University in New York City.

In another case, National Cancer Institute researcher Dr. Robert C. Gallo has been the target of numerous investigations of his role in the scientific process that led to the identification of the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS.

Traditionally, scientists have relied on an honor system and on the operation of self-regulating checks and balances, among them, review by their scientific peers. But in recent years, largely as a result of some of these highly publicized cases, Congress and federal agencies have tried to help establish policies and procedures to monitor scientists and facilities that receive federal funding--virtually the entire research community. Nevertheless, the academy report said, “the problems . . . have not been resolved.”

The panel recommended that a special scientific board be established to gather data on scientific ethics and misconduct and to help institutions develop policies and deal with allegations. The board would not become involved in resolving actual cases but would collect information on episodes of misconduct and make the data available to the public, the panel said.

The board also would draft model procedures for “reinforcing research integrity and handling allegations” and would provide opinions and guidance to officials of institutions who are experiencing difficulty in implementing such policies.

Such a board “has the potential to improve significantly both the performance of the scientific community in handling instances of misconduct and also the environment for sustaining integrity in research,” the report said. The proposal to establish the board “deserves the support” of research institutions, federal agencies and Congress, the report said.

The report defined scientific misconduct as “fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reporting research,” and urged research institutions and government agencies to adopt this definition.

The panel defined “questionable research practices” as actions that “violate traditional values” of scientific research but fall short of misconduct. These could include, for example, failing to retain significant research data for a reasonable period, using inappropriate statistical methods of measurement, presenting speculations as fact or bypassing peer review before presenting results, especially in public forums, the report said.

The panel said that the number of confirmed instances of misconduct appears to be low, compared to the level of research activity in the United States. But it acknowledged that there may be “significant” under-reporting. Between 1989 and 1991, more than 200 allegations of scientific misconduct were reported. Of that number, about 30 cases have been confirmed, the report said.

The number is low when compared to the 26,000 research grants annually supported by the National Institutes of Health, the panel said.

The committee also urged protection for whistle-blowers as well as for the accused, particularly in the early stages of an investigation.

“Individuals who, in good conscience, report suspected misconduct in science deserve support and protection,” the report said.

Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its oversight and investigations subcommittee, which has waged an unrelenting inquiry into the way the NIH and others have conducted scientific fraud investigations, said that the report represents “a sea change in the scientific Establishment’s approach to issues of misconduct.”

Dingell said that the subcommittee has always believed that “scientists should police themselves,” as the report recommended. “But policies, procedures and training manuals cannot substitute for a willingness to confront misconduct by their peers,” he added.