What should the standard of proof be in scientific misconduct proceedings relating to public health service-funded research?

Roy G Spece, J. Marchalonis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This article discusses the nature and purposes behind the three standards of proof commonly used in the United States. It summarizes the analytical constructs or standards of review courts commonly use to determine the constitutional validity of standards of proof (as well as other procedural protections) in physician disciplinary proceedings. It applies these constructs to the context of scientific misconduct and an illustrative case, and shows that sound policy and morals as well as procedural due process and equal protection provisions of the United States and some state constitutions require the use of the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in scientific misconduct proceedings. That standard is necessary to protect scientists from misuse of scientific misconduct charges and proceedings, entailing, as they do, vast discretion in bureaucratic officials as well as staggering costs. The imminent rule making proceedings at the federal level will provide a special opportunity to right a wrong that long has been long visited upon academic scientists throughout the United States.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)565-577
Number of pages13
JournalCellular and molecular biology (Noisy-le-Grand, France)
Volume49
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jun 2003

Fingerprint

Scientific Misconduct
United States Public Health Service
Health Services Research
Public health
Civil Rights
Constitution and Bylaws
Acoustic waves
Physicians
Costs and Cost Analysis
Costs

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Molecular Biology
  • Clinical Biochemistry
  • Cell Biology

Cite this

@article{36e051f524c941208b0996963ac62dac,
title = "What should the standard of proof be in scientific misconduct proceedings relating to public health service-funded research?",
abstract = "This article discusses the nature and purposes behind the three standards of proof commonly used in the United States. It summarizes the analytical constructs or standards of review courts commonly use to determine the constitutional validity of standards of proof (as well as other procedural protections) in physician disciplinary proceedings. It applies these constructs to the context of scientific misconduct and an illustrative case, and shows that sound policy and morals as well as procedural due process and equal protection provisions of the United States and some state constitutions require the use of the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in scientific misconduct proceedings. That standard is necessary to protect scientists from misuse of scientific misconduct charges and proceedings, entailing, as they do, vast discretion in bureaucratic officials as well as staggering costs. The imminent rule making proceedings at the federal level will provide a special opportunity to right a wrong that long has been long visited upon academic scientists throughout the United States.",
author = "Spece, {Roy G} and J. Marchalonis",
year = "2003",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "565--577",
journal = "Cellular and Molecular Biology",
issn = "0145-5680",
publisher = "Cellular and Molecular Biology Association",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What should the standard of proof be in scientific misconduct proceedings relating to public health service-funded research?

AU - Spece, Roy G

AU - Marchalonis, J.

PY - 2003/6

Y1 - 2003/6

N2 - This article discusses the nature and purposes behind the three standards of proof commonly used in the United States. It summarizes the analytical constructs or standards of review courts commonly use to determine the constitutional validity of standards of proof (as well as other procedural protections) in physician disciplinary proceedings. It applies these constructs to the context of scientific misconduct and an illustrative case, and shows that sound policy and morals as well as procedural due process and equal protection provisions of the United States and some state constitutions require the use of the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in scientific misconduct proceedings. That standard is necessary to protect scientists from misuse of scientific misconduct charges and proceedings, entailing, as they do, vast discretion in bureaucratic officials as well as staggering costs. The imminent rule making proceedings at the federal level will provide a special opportunity to right a wrong that long has been long visited upon academic scientists throughout the United States.

AB - This article discusses the nature and purposes behind the three standards of proof commonly used in the United States. It summarizes the analytical constructs or standards of review courts commonly use to determine the constitutional validity of standards of proof (as well as other procedural protections) in physician disciplinary proceedings. It applies these constructs to the context of scientific misconduct and an illustrative case, and shows that sound policy and morals as well as procedural due process and equal protection provisions of the United States and some state constitutions require the use of the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in scientific misconduct proceedings. That standard is necessary to protect scientists from misuse of scientific misconduct charges and proceedings, entailing, as they do, vast discretion in bureaucratic officials as well as staggering costs. The imminent rule making proceedings at the federal level will provide a special opportunity to right a wrong that long has been long visited upon academic scientists throughout the United States.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2142810063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2142810063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12899448

AN - SCOPUS:2142810063

VL - 49

SP - 565

EP - 577

JO - Cellular and Molecular Biology

JF - Cellular and Molecular Biology

SN - 0145-5680

IS - 4

ER -