Proposed changes to rules for policing fraud in U.S.-funded biomedical research draw a mixed response

The first proposed update in nearly 20 years to U.S. rules governing research misconduct by biomedical scientists is drawing mixed reviews. The revamped rules would give universities less time to decide whether to pursue an allegation against a faculty member, require more record-keeping, and bar institutions from quickly closing a case they believe reflects “honest error.” At the same time, academic administrators are pleased that the update would preserve the current definition of misconduct and streamline the process for those appealing a guilty finding. The changes are meant to bring more clarity to what has become a growing—albeit unpleasant—part of the U.S. academic landscape: determining whether a federally funded scientist has faked data in a paper or committed other research misdeeds. The goal is greater transparency, efficiency, and equity, says Sheila Garrity, director of the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which last month issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) containing those proposed changes. And she’s eager for community feedback by the 5 December deadline for comments. “What I hope we get through the NPRM process is a better way to review research misconduct allegations, for both ORI and the institutions that do the initial intake and review,” says Garrity, an attorney with a master’s degree in public health and veteran university administrator, who has been on the job since March. “If the regulated c...
Source: Science of Aging Knowledge Environment - Category: Geriatrics Source Type: research