Dresser R
School of Law, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106.
Acad Med. 1993 Sep;68(9 Suppl):S39-43. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199309000-00032.
The author discusses the legal principles that could assist in the design and administration of the official response to conduct found to threaten the integrity of the scientific process. The primary emphasis is on the principles that shape decisions about punishment. In the present climate of uncertainty about misconduct, it is difficult to adopt fair and consistent approaches to the selection of sanctions and other remedial actions. Officials have taken a variety of actions in response to unacceptable research behavior. Some federal actions have involved proceedings to recover the offending grant recipients' federal funds, prohibiting them from receiving federal grants or contracts for a set period, terminating or withholding ongoing grant support, and mandating future supervision of the offenders' research conduct; and universities have denied or revoked tenure, required or accepted retirement, and disclosed misconduct findings to potential future employers. Three types of legal remedies seem to have influenced the selection of sanctions in past cases: (1) the quasi-contractual legal remedy of restitution, (2) the philosophy of "just deserts," or retribution, based on the largely intuitive idea that the individual who engages in criminal conduct deserves punishment, and (3) deterrence of misconduct. Each type has a range of considerations and implications, and officials should thoughtfully consider the appropriate role of each, because their selection of sanctions will probably have a significant effect on the research community's perceptions of the system's fairness and efficacy.
