National Postdoctoral Association

RCR TOOLKIT
<< Prev | Table of Contents | Next >>

The definition of research misconduct is constantly evolving as institutions and agencies continue to establish guidance for their communities on how to conduct research with integrity. The basic components, however, of research misconduct remain: falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism in the course of research activities. This is often referred to as “FFP.” There is another component that is receiving increasing attention that involves research practices that are not as egregious as FFP but are found to occur with much greater frequency. These are called questionable research practices, or “QRP,” and studies have suggested that those who engage in QRP will have an increased tendency to commit FFP (see M. Anderson and collaborators, as reported at the 2008 ORI Conference on RCR Education, Instruction and Training).

Training in this topic typically involves the various agency definitions of misconduct, how to report occurrences and the roles and responsibilities of the whistleblower. For postdocs it is important to also identify the risk involved in whistleblowing, since they are particularly vulnerable to repercussions. Furthermore, even in a situation where postdocs may succeed in reporting misconduct, they often still lose since their position and immediate career future may depend upon the PI or lab that has engaged in misconduct. For these reasons it is also important to make clear the avenues available to postdocs for asking advice and questions about sensitive situations, whether that is through the ombudsman, the postdoc office director or a peer network of some kind.

Teaching Materials and Case Studies

Chapter 4 on Teaching Materials for Research Misconduct provides teaching materials and case studies for postdocs:

Alexander, M. and Williams, W.R. A Guidebook for Teaching Selected RCR Topics to Culturally Diverse Trainee Groups. Philadelphia: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/Alexander.RCR%20Guidebook.BW.pdf

Martinson, B.C., Anderson, M.S., and de Vries, R. (2005) “Scientists Behaving Badly.” Nature, 435, 737-738.
Study on self-reported research “misbehaviors” or QRP, with comparison of late-, mid- and early-career scientists. Surveyed early-career scientists, 58% of which are postdoctoral fellows, showed different patterns in misconduct, and reported a somewhat lower rate of committing misconduct than mid-career scientists (28% compared with 38%).

Articles on Whistleblowing

A useful article from Science Careers about the issues involved in being a whistle blower in science:
Scientific Integrity and Ethics: A Dilemma

Protecting Whistleblowers--Tell ORI What You Think! A Science Careersdiscussion of ORI regulations for protecting whistleblowers (rules passed in 2001)

Overview of Whistleblower Policies at ORI

Another article that considers the potential consequences of being a whistle blower:
Hoke, F. (1995) "Veteran Whistleblowers Advise Other Would-Be 'Ethical Resisters' To Carefully Weigh Personal Consequences Before Taking Action" The Scientist 9(10):1
http://classic.the-scientist.com/article/display/16504/ (subscription required)

A very accessible article from New York Times Magazine in 2006 describes the experience of former University of Vermont lab tech Walter DeNino, who was the whistleblower in the Eric Poehlman case, the first research misconduct case that resulted in jail time.
Interlandi, J. "An Unwelcome Discovery." New York Times Magazine October 22, 2006

Next: Communication and Difficult Conversations >>

Please complete a short feedback questionnaire on the toolkit and tell us how it might be improved!