Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ombudsman for research practice

A proposal for a new position and an invitation to comment

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose that institutions consider establishing a position of “Ombudsman for Research Practice”. This person would assume several roles: as asounding board to those needing confidential consultation about research issues — basic, applied or clinical; as afacilitator for those wishing to pursue a formal grievance process; and as aneducator to distribute guidelines and standards, to raise the consciousness regarding sloppy or irregular practices in order to prevent misconduct and to promote the responsible conduct of research. While there are compelling features to this position, many complex issues need to be considered and resolved. We invite readers to respond to questions we raise in the text.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holton G (1988)Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought—Kepler to Einstein, Revised Edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rowe M P (1991) The ombudsman’s role in a dispute resolution system.Negotiation Journal 7:353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lo B and Dornbrand L (1986) The case of Claire Conroy: Will administrative review safeguard incompetent patients?The Annals of Internal Medicine 104:869–873.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Reiser S J and Knudson P (1993) Protecting research subjects after consent: The case for the “Research Intermediary”,IRB, March–April:10–11.

  5. Staff (1994)The Journal of NIH Research 6:31–32.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dresser R (1993) Defining scientific misconduct — The relevance of mental state.Journal of the American Medical Association 269:895–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (1992)Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Volume I. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Flint A (1994) Conduct of science called ‘crisis’ — researchers strive for ethical control.The Boston Globe, June 27, 1994, pp. 1, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hilts P J (1993) Misconduct in science is not rare, a survey finds.The New York Times, November 12, 1993. Report of a survey by Judith Swazey et al. of the Acadia Institute published inThe Scientist 88:542–543, November 11, 1993.

  10. Alberts B and Shine K (1994) Scientists and the integrity of research.Science 266:1660–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rowe M P (1991) The ombudsman’s role in a dispute resolution system.Negotiation Journal 7:356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gunsalus C K (1993) Institutional structure to ensure research integrity.Academic Medicine Supplement 68:S33-S38.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Devine T (1995) To ensure accountability, a whistleblower’s Bill of Rights.The Scientist. May, 15:p. 11.

  14. National Institutes of Health (1990) Reminder and update: requirement for programs on the responsible conduct of research in National Research Service Award institutional training programs.NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 19;August 17:1.

    Google Scholar 

  15. National Institutes of Health (1992) Reminder and update: requirement for programs on the responsible conduct of research in National Research Service Award institutional training programs.NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 21; November 27:2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dickson D (1994) Rockefeller denies work pressures led to ‘poisoning’ of researchers.Nature 370:315.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Taubes G (1994) Death threats and trial by tabloid.Science 265:732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Whitbeck C (1994) Letter to the editor: Overlapping dissertation topics.Science 265:1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stevens S, Ge H, Oelgeschlager T, et al. (1994) ‘Drive is from within’, say scientists.Nature 370:315.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 1994 (1995, April) Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, p. 18.

  21. Committee on Government Operations (1990)Are Scientific Misconduct and Conflicts of Interest Hazardous to Our Health? Nineteenth Report by the CGO together with Dissenting and Additional Views. House Report 101-688. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rauche-Elnekave H (1989) Advocacy and ombudswork for children: Implications of the Israeli Experience.Child Welfare 68:101–112.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rowe M P (1995, April) Options, functions and skills: What an organizational ombudsperson might want to know. Negotiation Journal11.

  24. Devine T (1995) To ensure accountability, a whistleblower’s Bill of Rights.The Scientist. May 15:11.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kassirer J P (1993) The frustrations of scientific misconduct.New England Journal of Medicine 328:1634–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 (PL 103-43 Sec. 163 of Subtitle C); June 10, 1993.

  27. Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 1994 (1995) Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health. April.

  28. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, California Supreme Court, 17 California Reports, 3rd Series, 425, decided July 1, 1976.

  29. Personal communication with Mary Rowe, Ph.D., Ombudsperson at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (June, 1995).

  30. Glazer M P and Glazer P M (1989)The Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry, Basic Books, Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kiely M A and Kiely D C (1987) Whistleblowing: Disclosure and its consequences for the professional nurse and management.Nursing Management 18:41–42, 44–45.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Feliu A G (1983, October) The risks of blowing the whistle.American Journal of Nursing 83:1387–1388, 1390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dingell J D (1993) Misconduct in medical research.New England Journal of Medicine 328:1610–1615. p. 1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hoke F (1995) Veteran whistleblowers advise other would-be ‘ethical resisters’ to carefully weigh personal consequences before taking action.The Scientist. May 15:pp. 1, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sims C (1994) Trying to mute the whistle-blowers.The New York Times, April 11, pp. D1, D8.

  36. Lennane K J (1993) “Whistleblowing”: A health issue.British Medical Journal 307:667–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Feliu A G (1983, November) Thinking of blowing the whistle?American Journal of Nursing 83:1387–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (1992)Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Volume 1. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Knight J (1991) Scientific misconduct: The rights of the accused.Issues in Science and Technology. Fall:28–29.

  40. Institute of Medicine, Division of Health Sciences (1989)Report of a Committee on the Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences. Washington, D.C. p. 86.

  41. Miceli M P and Near J P (1992)Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal Implications for Companies and Employees, Lexington Books. New York, p. 292.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gunsalus C K (1993) Institutional structure to ensure research integrity.Academic Medicine Supplement 68:S33-S38.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fiesta J (1990) Whistleblowers: Heroes or stool pigeons? — Part I.Nursing Management 21:16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Holden C (1988) Whistle-blowers air cases at House hearings. Science240:386–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Edsall J T (1988) The nature of whistle-blowing [Letter].Science 241:11–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Curtin L L (1993) Damage control and the whistleblower.Nursing Management 24:33–34.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Medicine and Division of Medical Ethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Ruth L. Fischbach Ph.D.

  2. Department of Research and Training Development, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Diane C. Gilbert C.R.A.

Authors
  1. Ruth L. Fischbach Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diane C. Gilbert C.R.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fischbach, R.L., Gilbert, D.C. The ombudsman for research practice. Sci Eng Ethics 1, 389–402 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02583257

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02583257

Keywords

Search

Navigation