Abstract
Current DHHS regulations require that policies and procedures developed by institutions to handle allegations of scientific misconduct include provisions for “undertaking diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.” Analogously, institutions receiving PHS funds are required to protect the confidentiality of those accused of such misconduct or, failing that, to restore their reputations if the allegations are not confirmed. Based on two surveys, one of whistleblowers and one of individuals accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct, this paper examines how well the system works to protect both sets of participants in cases of alleged misconduct.
Contrary to popular impressions created by notorious cases, substantial minorities of both whistleblowers and exonerated scientists experience no adverse outcomes at the time the allegations are made and pursued. During this period, however, whistleblowers report more negative outcomes and more severe negative outcomes than their accused but exonerated counterparts. In the longer run, majorities of both groups report little impact on different aspects of their careers or professional activities, though those who report any impacts generally report negative ones. The accused but exonerated, however, appear to fare worse than whistleblowers in impacts on several aspects of their personal lives; their mental health, physical health, self-esteem, and self-identity.
The evidence from these studies suggests that: (1) federal officials should focus on the role of institutional and departmental officials in mediating the most severe consequences experienced by those involved in these incidents; (2) potential whistleblowers and accused scientists should be counseled regarding the likely harm they will suffer if their case gains notoriety or if they hire an attorney; and (3) institutions can best protect whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct by acting promptly and limiting access to information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. (1992), Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Council of Scientific Society Presidents. (1995) Society Policies on Ethics Issues. Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Public Health Service. (1989) Responsibility of PHS awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science. 42 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Subchapter D, Part 50, Subpart A, Sections 101–105.
Jos, P.H., Tompkins, M.E., & Hays, S.W. (1989) In praise of difficult people: A portrait of the committed whistleblower. Public Administration Review 49: 552–561.
Sieber, J.E. (1998) The psychology of whistleblowing. Science and Engineering Ethics 4: 7–23.
Gunsalus, C.K. (1998) How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards. Science and Engineering Ethics 4: 51–64.
Commission on Research Integrity. (1995) Integrity and Misconduct in Research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.
Sprague, R.L. (1998) The Voice of Experience. Science and Engineering Ethics 4: 33–44.
Glazer, M.P. & Glazer, P.M. (1989) The Whistleblowers. Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY.
Bechtel, H.K., Jr. & Pearson, W. Jr. (1985) Deviant scientists and scientific deviance. Deviant Behavior 6: 237–252.
Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E., & Ordway, S. (1996) Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics 2: 89–114.
Kalichman, MW. & Friedman, P.J. (1992) A pilot study of biomedical trainees: perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67: 767–773.
Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation. (1990) Survey Data on the Extent of Misconduct in Science and Engineering. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. OIG-90-3214.
Swazey, J.P., Anderson, M.S. & Louis, K.S. (1993) Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 81: 542–553.
Swazey, J.P., Louis, K.S. & Anderson, M.S. (1989) University policies and ethical issues in research and graduate education: highlights of the CGS deans’ survey. CGS Communicator 22 (March):1–3, 7–8.
Woolf, P.K. (1981) Fraud in science: how much, how serious? Hastings Center Report 11 (October): 9–14.
Woolf, P.K. (1986) Pressure to publish and fraud in science. Annals of Internal Medicine 104 (2): 254–56.
Woolf, P.K. (1988) Deception in scientific research. Jurimetrics Journal 29 (Fall):67–95.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1993) Whistleblowing in the Federal Government: An Update. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993) Whistleblower Protection: Reasons for Whistleblower Complainants’ Dissatisfaction Need to Be Explored. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.
Lubalin, J.S., Ardini, M.E. & Matheson, J.L. (1995) Consequences of Whistleblowing for the Whistleblower in Misconduct in Science Cases: Final Report. Research Triangle Institute, Washington, DC. Available in “Reports & Special Studies Section of Publications” on the Office of Research Integrity website at: http://ori.dhhs.gov. Also available from the ORI by calling (301) 443-5300 or writing to Office of Research Integrity, 5515 Security Lane, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
Lubalin, J.S., Matheson, J.L., and Ardini, M.E. (1996) Survey of Accused but Exonerated Individuals in Research Misconduct Cases: Final Report. Research Triangle Institute, Washington, DC. Available in “Reports & Special Studies Section of Publications” on the Office of Research Integrity website at: http://ori.dhhs.gov. Also available from the ORI by calling (301) 443-5300 or writing to Office of Research Integrity, 5515 Security Lane, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lubalin, J.S., Matheson, J.L. The fallout: What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?. SCI ENG ETHICS 5, 229–250 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0014-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0014-9