One of the best aspects of the proposal is the clear delineation of the responsibilities of Federal agencies as contrasted to those of research institutions. We also welcome the unambiguous separation of the investigative phase from the adjudication phase. We support the policy change announced by HHS Secretary Donna Shalala charging the Office of Inspector General, rather than the Office of Research Integrity, with the responsibility for further fact finding, if needed. Hence we are fully in accord with the proposed definition specifically designating those acts as research misconduct. We do have some suggestions, mentioned below, that would strengthen the definition and accompanying policy along with the procedures for its implementation by institutions and government.
Scientists have the obligation to make prudent judgments in research.
Prudence frequently requires that data be selected which, of course, will entail occasionally having to omit data. For example, instruments often malfunction and data obtained under those circumstances must be discarded. Likewise, cell cultures can become contaminated, and data or results obtained with them are untrustworthy. Other examples in all branches of science can be cited where it is essential for the investigator to be free to select data based on his or her judgment. This makes it clear that omitting data per se is not going to be construed as research misconduct.