It is not just the well-being of the general public that can be seriously affected by the fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation of data. As the case of Robert Sprague shows, those who report scientific misconduct may go through hardships. Although his wife was dying of cancer at the time, Sprague was so concerned about the fabrication of data he discovered, that he took on the responsibilities of a whistleblower. In fact, it was partly because of the realization that his wife's well-being depended on honest, reliable research regarding drugs and treatment that Sprague was motivated to act on behalf of others who are similarly dependent. Often it is not only those on whom the whistle is blown who challenge whistleblowers, but also institutions within which those accused work.
Institutions also wish to preserve their public reputation as reliable.
They may also find it difficult to accept the idea that one of their researchers has cheated, and they may feel accused of themselves failing to monitor carefully the work of the accused. If you are using Navigator 2.0 or later, and you see this message, you should enable JavaScript by on the Advanced page of the Preferences dialog box.