INTRODUCTION

NSF has observed a doubling of allegations and an increasing number of serious cases resulting in Research Misconduct findings.

On December 6, 2000, the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House published the Federal Research Misconduct
Policy and required all federal agencies or departments supporting intramural or extramural research to implement it within
one year either through policies or regulations.

The following agencies or departments have done so: Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defense,
Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, Department of Veteran Affairs, the Environmental Protection
Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Endowment for the Humanities, the National
Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian Institution. Links are provided below to the policies or regulations
that are available on-line. The Department of Energy has published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The remaining five departments report that their policies have been drafted and are undergoing internal
review: Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Justice.

The National Science Foundation policy requires that for proposals submitted ON or AFTER 4 January 2010. . .

An institution must have a plan in place to provide appropriate training and oversight in the
responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral
researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research. As noted in GPG Chapter II.C.1.e,
institutional certification to this effect is required for each proposal.

While training plans are not required to be included in proposals submitted to NSF, institutions
are advised that they are subject to review upon request.

An institution must designate one or more persons to oversee compliance with the RCR training requirement.

Institutions are responsible for verifying that undergraduate students, graduate students and
postdoctoral researchers supported by NSF to conduct research have received training in the responsible
and ethical conduct of research.

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

“Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research
funded by a federal agency, reviewing research proposals submitted to a federal agency, or in reporting
research results funded by a federal agency.” 45 C.F.R. §689.1

Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or
omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes or words
without giving appropriate credit.

Background
Science is predicated on trust. Without confidence in the integrity of their peers, scientists would
be unable to trust one another’s work. Self-regulation and self-policing operate to ensure the
legitimacy of research, and necessitate that scientists foster an environment in which responsible
research is explicitly discussed and encouraged. Scientists should be familiar with definitions of
research misconduct and procedures for dealing with it, regardless of whether they will ever be a
party to allegations.

Necessity for Self-Policing
The details of how research is conducted are often known only to those actually working on a project.
This relative secrecy is driven by many different factors, from sheer practicality, to protection
of credit or intellectual property rights, to worries about the possible misuse of preliminary data.
Where there is this secrecy, however, misconduct will only come to light if someone close to the
project blows the whistle.

Dispute Resolution
Many concerns are best addressed by means other than alleging research misconduct. Some institutions
have formal mechanisms in place for conflict resolution, mediation, or arbitration; absent such
mechanisms, finding a solution to a dispute may require some creativity. If you suspect research
misconduct, please familiarize yourself with all relevant institutional procedures. Research misconduct
must be reported to the appropriate administrator, i.e., Director of Sponsored Programs, Vice President
for Research, Office of Counsel, or Dean of Graduate Studies, without fear of reprisal.

MENTORING

“Mentoring refers to a developmental relationship in which a more experienced person helps a less
experienced person; serve as a teacher or trusted counselor; a wise and trusted guide and advisor.”

Background
Mentoring the next generation of scientists is a responsibility for current scientists. A mentor has
experience with the challenges that will be faced by a trainee, the ability to communicate that experience,
and a willingness to do so. A mentor assists the trainee in understanding and adhering to the standards of
conduct within their profession. A mentor reaches responsible conduct explicitly and by example; mentoring
involves both what is verbalized and what is demonstrated in practice.

Eastwood et al. (1996) found that nearly 40% of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a
survey at the University of California, San Francisco reported having had no guidance in ethical
research from a scientific mentor. Brown and Kalichman (1998) found that half of graduate students
responding to a survey at the University of California, San Diego reported that the total time spent
discussing responsible conduct of research with a major professor or advisor had been one hour or less.
In a nationwide survey of doctoral students, Swazey and Anderson (1998) found that in nearly every
defined dimension of training in ethics, over half of the respondents reported that faculty members
provided little or no help.

An absence of adequate mentoring can have significant consequences for the integrity of research.
In their survey of 2000 doctoral students, Anderson et al. found that departmental climate was the
strongest predictor for misconduct (Anderson et al., 1994). Overall, misconduct was found to occur more
often in those departments in which the climate favors competition and discourages collaboration. However,
research misconduct occurred least often in those cases in which students felt that their advisors, or others,
provided useful feedback and evaluation. These findings are consistent with the view that explicit mentoring
serves to promote the responsible conduct of research and to reduce the risk of research misconduct.

Regulations and Guidelines
Despite its presumed importance, with the exception of the National Science Foundation (NSF), no
regulations explicitly require or prescribe standards for mentoring. The NSF Proposal & Award Policies &
Procedures Guide (PAPPG) includes revised guidelines to implement the mentoring provisions of the America
COMPETES Act (ACA) (Pub. L. No. 110-69, Aug. 9, 2007.) As specified in the ACA, each proposal that requests
funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include a description of the mentoring activities that will
be provided for such individuals. Proposals that do not comply with this requirement will be returned without
review (see the PAPP Guide Part I: Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II for further information about the
implementation of this new requirement).

Advice
A mentor’s role is to provide advice, help, and encouragement, to guide rather than decide for the trainee.
The trainee’s responsibility is to seek out mentors and to act based on their own values, goals, and experience.
Modeling good skills and behavior is a necessary element of mentoring.

By Word and Example
Effective mentoring is essential. Although mentoring alone may be insufficient, mentoring is essential to
promote a positive attitude and understanding of the responsible conduct of research.

Mentoring is a shared professional responsibility of all scientists. The enterprise of science depends
on effective communication not just about the science, but about the practice of science, standards of conduct,
and ethical and social responsibility. Taking an active role in helping to train the next generation of
scientists should not be optional; and scientific trainees have a complementary responsibility to take an
active role in their own development and seek mentors.