Should scientists have a voice in research misconduct proceedings?

1. Having read the new rules of DHSS and the response of Alan I Leshner on behalf of AAAS, I want to tell you that, as an AAAS member, I am in total agreement with the terms of this letter and I fully support this initative of our Association. (member from the United States)

2. It is imperative that scientists should have a major input to the judgement of other scientists. It is my experience that lawyers are unaware of the complexities of scientific matters that they readily become monochrome in their views. This is nether representastive nor helpful in such cases. (member from the United Kingdom)

3. This policy change is but one additional reflection of the single minded determination of this administration to eliminate the contribution of scientists in significant areas of public policy, particularly where their expertise might specifically be required. (member from the United States)

4. Should scientists have a voice in research misconduct proceedings? I believe it depends upon the factors such as willful oversight, irreparable harm, overall impact on society, impact on the sciences, etc. The world is not binary so responding to a complex question with a simple yes/no answer misrepresents the scientific way. (member from the United States)

5. It is essential for very expert knowledge to be used in many judgements of this type. e.g. how could anybody but a very expert specialist mathematician comment on whether proof of say Fermat's last theorem had been plagiarised from other work or not. (member from England)

6. Advances in Western culture have been in response to abuses of power. The institution of trial by a jury of the accused’s peers is a shining example of a semi-successful step to counter abuse of power. In matters relating to science, a scientist’s peers are other scientists. Denying a scientist accused of scientific misconduct the right of appeal to a jury of his/her peers is a retrograde action. It reverses the trend toward elimination of abuse of power. It is difficult not to suspect that is the intent, to suspect there is a desire in some quarters to subvert freedom of scientific inquiry. Of course the real culprit is the admixture of government and science. This has been an attempt to mix oil and water. Government funding of scientific investigation has led to the politicization of science. Since true scientific investigation can only occur in an environment free from political control. While trial by a jury of one’s peers was a major advance in culture, so also was the recognition that science must be free from government control. Government funding of science has undermined that freedom and now there is an attempt to undermine trial by one’s peers. All of this is culturally retrograde. We are watching the dissolution of the advances of the Age of Enlightenment. We are already in the Postmodern Age, the early stages of a slide back to the irrationality of the non-scientific cultures of earlier times. (member from the United States)

7. I think an overwhelming yes vote is important to the survival of good science. (member from the United Kingdom)

8. Ethical behavior and misconduct have nothing to do with the specific research someone is doing. Linking them clearly suggests to the public that scientists are the only qualified people to judge other scientists. This could be interpreted as bias on the scientist part, distrust of non-scientist, and smacks of conflict of interest. (member from the United States)

9. It should be a matter *only* for scientists. (member from Italy)

10. Scientific misconduct is something that should be judged by reasonable standards, so there isn't any special reason to involve members of the science fraternity. Scientists should be able to provide "expert testimony" in any hearing. (member from the United States)

11. Of course this should be the case. A system without this will reach uninformed, and therefore potentially incorrect, opinions that could affect a person's career, and the pursuit of science, adversely. (member from the United States)

12. The inescapable consequence of goverment funding of research is government control, which eventually becomes the control of science by non-scientists. If the government policies are based on religion and not on rationalism, even the deifinition of " scientific misconduct" will one day be based in religion. The current adminitration is essentially replacing rationalism with religion. (member from the United States)

13. How can someone with no training or experience become an authority? (member from the United States)

14. We as scientists need to be more outspoken against misconduct when it occurs. Currently, there is no deterrent: Most even blatant misconduct results maximally in not being able to get funding for a few years. But in most cases, not even that. There are many examples (not declaring a blatant conflict of interest, not supervising a student enough to detect the student's fraud) that did not harm these scientist's careers. Honesty in science has to become again an absolute must - scientists have to know that their career will end in case of blatant misconduct, that an apology will not do. (member from the United States)

15. I can't imagine how a judge who hadn't himself conducted scientific research in a related area could possibly grasp the nuances in some cases of alleged misconduct,any more than I could fairly referee a cricket game. (member from the United States)

16. Science is being politicized and distorted by the Bush administration. (member from the United States)

17. As a neophyte physician I was somehow appointed Chmn of the Committee to respond to patients' complaints. The members of the Committee generally represented the various specialties. We received a complaint about a General Practitioner that was especially hard for me to assign, as I was a neophyte specialist in Internal Medicine. The Generalist on the Committee spoke up and volunteered to respond because he felt responsibility for his Specialty. That was nearly fifty years ago, and I still feel relieved by his action. We are responsible for our professions and must be represented responsibly. On the other hand I worked as a consultant for a judge who was responsible for persons applying for disabiliity compensation. Were he the judge with available consultants from the scientific community I would rest easy. (member from the United States)

18. If scientists can not be trusted to regulate themselves, the entire enterprise is doomed. (member from the United States)

19. Just a short comment: It's silly asking lay judges to evaluate scientific research without the input of experts. (member from the United States)

20. Science's successes owe much to a credible system of review by scientist-peers. It boggles the mind that an "improvment" in the misconduct review process could be made by changing the decision maker to a scientific ignoramus. One can only suppose that this initiative was made by Al Queda or some other body anxious to return the world to the sixth century. (member from the United States)

21. We must protect the right of everybody to be judged by his/her peers. In the fields of specialty, several appropriate experts should be involved to assure impartiality. A physicist without demonstrated working experience in Arts, should not be asked to judge whether Picasso's "Guernica" was a fraud or socially subversive. Certainly, Ashcroft should not be chosen as the judge in this situation who covered the breasts of the stone statue at the entry of the Supreme Court. Thus, we must also preserve the right to nominate an unprjudiced, open minded judge. In today's US judicial system, this is also a serious concern. Even the Nobel anointed Baltimore needed some 10 years to rehabilitate himself against the wrath of the system. It is is becoming increasingly scarey! (member from the United States)

22. Scientists should have a voice in research misconduct cases. However,the scientists selected in each case sould be ones who have a good understanding of basic research protocols and data, but who do not know the individual(s) being charged with misconduct. (member from the United States)

23. Dear Dr. Leshner, Thanks to you and AAAS for supporting scientists' role in misconduct hearings. I'm sure that many of us think that scientists should have the only roles. I am quite fearful in general that scientists are becoming devalued in our society, especially because we can do more good for humanity than any other profession. (member from the United States)

24. I strongly believe that the input of expert scientific opinion is essential in reaching fair and accurate conclusions/decisions involving issues of a scientific nature. (member from the United States)

25. I have been retired from the U of MN faculty for 4 years now. I do not see how allegations of scientific misconduct can be fairly evaluated other than by scientists with expertise in the scientific discipline in which the misconduct is alleged to have occurred. Somehow, however, account must be taken of the great difficulty of any group to meaningfully discipline itself. The proposed rules are about what I would expect from the Bush administration. The administration seems bent upon destroying every thing that has been good and great about the Unted States. (member from the United States)

26. A board of scientists should be the "first line of defence" against fraud. However, anybody accused of misconduct should also have a recourse to a legal court in order to avoid the possibility of "kangooroo courts" or bashing "unconfortable" collegues. (member from Luxemburg)

27. I find the current trend in science policy very troubling. Many times the catch phrases of "good science" and "peer review" are trotted out to put a facade onto otherwise inappropriate, politically driven decisions regarding scientific endeavor, monetary support and issues. With this said, I feel that this change is indicative of such policies, attempting to remove true experts from a process that requires them. Please feel free to contact me about this in the future, as I am willing to speak out about this. (member from the United States)

28. Absolutely scientist should have input to this appeals process. It is part of our political and judicial heritage that one should be judged by a "jury of peers". (member from the United States)

29. How else can a nonscientist judge formulate and opinion? The "NO" vote at this time is 2%; it would appear that 2% of those voting are incompetent. (member from the United States)

30. In any court proceedings, experts are called to testify. In the case of scientific misconduct, the misconduct would have to be identified, a priori, clearly stated and established by the prosecuting authority. The defending scientist should have the opportunity to call expert witnesses on his/her behalf. The argument that many engage in the same form of conduct is not a defense. No expert panel is needed. A scientific advisory/oversight board merely adds another layer of bureaucracy to the proceedings. (member from the United States)

31. Having worked in extension/outreach of research-based information for 14 years, I have seen first hand how little even well-educated, responsible business and community managers understand of scientific methods or findings if they have not studied in scientific fields. Citizens accept unsubstantiated claims, in spite of the best science, and spend billions $/year on natural products, diet, yard and garden, group motivation, substance abuse recovery and many other things from for-profit entities. If scientific misconduct is such a serious issue, isn't commercial misconduct equally reprehensible? We claim it is, yet our govt and society are in no hurry to accept good science that goes against profits without explicitly insisting that business interests are also represented in the discussion. Scientific expertise is similarly needed to balance other interests in consideration of scientific misconduct. (member from the United States)

32. Scientists should absolutely have input into discussions and decisions about misconduct. Misconduct is situation and context specific -- what is acceptable or even standard in one field may be inappropriate in another field, for instance, having a senior advisor pro forma be listed as an author on a paper. Often, it is only the members of the field who really know the local standards. (member from the United States)

33. Nothing good can come out of cutting scientists out of the appeals process. Whoever came up with this change doesn't understand science -- or does understand it and wants to pursue an anti-science agenda by removing science from decision making. (member from the United States)

34. The moronic scientific decisions of the Bush administration are good examples of what can happen if scientists do not influence those decisions. (member from the United States)

35. All decisions made by a nonscientist, especially a lawyer, will follow whatever political idiocy is extant. Unfortunately, decisions by other scientists will not be better. It is hopeless. (member from the United States)

36. Very curious to know the profile of the 2% that voted against. Seems totally inconceivable. That vote is quite comparable to agreeing that the Judge who cannot speak the same language as the plaintiff and the defendant and the jury does not need any translators. (member from the United States)

37. Scientists should definitely decide on the validity and ethical values in matters of science, but individuals should be carefully chosen, so that the judgement has not a predetermined and selected basis of a certain group. (member from the United States)

38. Not only is the expert knowledge of the relevant sciences and methods indispensable for a fair resolution, plenty of researchers can be found who have no conflicts of interest with the parties concerned. (member from the United States)

39. It is critical that those with professional expertise and research experience in any given case have a voice in the proceedings. In addition, all too often, courts consider cases only from a strict context of public law, independent of the contexts in which the research was performed. Many cases, including those alleging research misconduct, need to be considered in indivual case contexts -e.g., whether in public, private, government, academic, for profit or non-profit business domains. (member from the United States)

40. I think that because the scientific community knows the science, scientists should have a voice in judging issues of misconduct. But knowing the science does not qualify one as having a sufficient background of ethics. Quite often, scientists are at odds with the general public as to what is and is not ethical scientific endeavor. And because scientists serve the ENTIRE general public, we should respect and adhere to the ethical values of those we serve. We need to hear their side, so I think it is a good idea to have non-scientists on an appeals board as well. (member from the United States)