>>> Posting number 2202, dated 15 May 1997 11:01:00 Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 11:01:00 EST Reply-To: Discussion of Fraud in Science Sender: Discussion of Fraud in Science From: "Gardenier, John S." Subject: Re: Journal of NIH Research W. R. Gibbons wrote the items between asterisks. My comments are interspersed. *I think it's fair to say that whistle blowers often are treated badly by their home institutions. Their complaints are analyzed by institutional committees that have a conflict of interest in that they are unlikely to want to demonstrate misconduct in their own institution.* Absolutely!! Even worse, the whistleblowers are effectively blacklisted partially because no "reputable" laboratory wants to hire anyone whose ethics are likely to exceed their loyalty. *Perhaps some of this seeming imbalance is necessary to discourage bad faith accusations of misconduct.* To my knowledge, this has only actually occurred as one of several forms of retaliation AGAINST whistleblowers. If anyone can cite documented instances of bad faith whistleblowing, I would be grateful for the information. (Other forms of retaliation against whistleblowers have included isolation, banishment from their laboratories, dismissal, and threats of deportation or of physical violence. See Integrity and Misconduct in Research, the report of the Ryan Commission.) * On the other hand, the system seems ideally designed to ensure that reports of misconduct will be rare.* Precisely! It is not designed to minimize misconduct; it is designed to minimize revelations of misconduct. As such, it inhibits even positive corrective actions such as counseling (rather than punishing) the offender. This system is virtually guaranteed to promote misconduct through "benign neglect." John Gardenier "May your results have practical, as well as (apparent) statistical significance."