What is scientific misconduct, who has to (dis)prove it, and to what level of certainty?

Roy G Spece, Carol Bernstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article traces the regulation of [U.S.] Public Health Service ("PHS")-funded research from changes begun with the proposal (1999) and then adoption (2000) of a basic, Uniform Federal ("research misconduct") Policy. It argues that the PHS misconduct regulations deny due process of law and are fundamentally unfair because they fail to specify the level of culpability for guilt, force accused researchers to prove that they are innocent, and, although admittedly quasi-criminal, adopt a standard of proof that tolerates nearly a 50 percent probability of false convictions. The regulations' infirmities will be demonstrated by applying them to facts relating to the central charge in the misconduct case pressed by the University of Arizona in 1997 through 2003 against then Arizona Regents' Professor Marguerite Kay, which facts are set forth in our companion piece in this theme issue.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)493-510
Number of pages18
JournalMedicine and Law
Volume26
Issue number3
StatePublished - Sep 2007

Fingerprint

Scientific Misconduct
regulation
Civil Rights
Guilt
Health Services Research
public health services
Public Health
Research Personnel
research policy
accused
guilt
university teacher
Law

Keywords

  • Office of Science Technology Policy
  • Recklessness
  • Research misconduct
  • Standard of proof
  • U.S. Public Health Service

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

What is scientific misconduct, who has to (dis)prove it, and to what level of certainty? / Spece, Roy G; Bernstein, Carol.

In: Medicine and Law, Vol. 26, No. 3, 09.2007, p. 493-510.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2072b4ba71b24328999fc3808445f0d1,
title = "What is scientific misconduct, who has to (dis)prove it, and to what level of certainty?",
abstract = "This article traces the regulation of [U.S.] Public Health Service ({"}PHS{"})-funded research from changes begun with the proposal (1999) and then adoption (2000) of a basic, Uniform Federal ({"}research misconduct{"}) Policy. It argues that the PHS misconduct regulations deny due process of law and are fundamentally unfair because they fail to specify the level of culpability for guilt, force accused researchers to prove that they are innocent, and, although admittedly quasi-criminal, adopt a standard of proof that tolerates nearly a 50 percent probability of false convictions. The regulations' infirmities will be demonstrated by applying them to facts relating to the central charge in the misconduct case pressed by the University of Arizona in 1997 through 2003 against then Arizona Regents' Professor Marguerite Kay, which facts are set forth in our companion piece in this theme issue.",
keywords = "Office of Science Technology Policy, Recklessness, Research misconduct, Standard of proof, U.S. Public Health Service",
author = "Spece, {Roy G} and Carol Bernstein",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "493--510",
journal = "Medicine and Law",
issn = "0723-1393",
publisher = "Yozmot Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is scientific misconduct, who has to (dis)prove it, and to what level of certainty?

AU - Spece, Roy G

AU - Bernstein, Carol

PY - 2007/9

Y1 - 2007/9

N2 - This article traces the regulation of [U.S.] Public Health Service ("PHS")-funded research from changes begun with the proposal (1999) and then adoption (2000) of a basic, Uniform Federal ("research misconduct") Policy. It argues that the PHS misconduct regulations deny due process of law and are fundamentally unfair because they fail to specify the level of culpability for guilt, force accused researchers to prove that they are innocent, and, although admittedly quasi-criminal, adopt a standard of proof that tolerates nearly a 50 percent probability of false convictions. The regulations' infirmities will be demonstrated by applying them to facts relating to the central charge in the misconduct case pressed by the University of Arizona in 1997 through 2003 against then Arizona Regents' Professor Marguerite Kay, which facts are set forth in our companion piece in this theme issue.

AB - This article traces the regulation of [U.S.] Public Health Service ("PHS")-funded research from changes begun with the proposal (1999) and then adoption (2000) of a basic, Uniform Federal ("research misconduct") Policy. It argues that the PHS misconduct regulations deny due process of law and are fundamentally unfair because they fail to specify the level of culpability for guilt, force accused researchers to prove that they are innocent, and, although admittedly quasi-criminal, adopt a standard of proof that tolerates nearly a 50 percent probability of false convictions. The regulations' infirmities will be demonstrated by applying them to facts relating to the central charge in the misconduct case pressed by the University of Arizona in 1997 through 2003 against then Arizona Regents' Professor Marguerite Kay, which facts are set forth in our companion piece in this theme issue.

KW - Office of Science Technology Policy

KW - Recklessness

KW - Research misconduct

KW - Standard of proof

KW - U.S. Public Health Service

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35448995266&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35448995266&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 17970248

AN - SCOPUS:35448995266

VL - 26

SP - 493

EP - 510

JO - Medicine and Law

JF - Medicine and Law

SN - 0723-1393

IS - 3

ER -