From the Department of Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa.
THE REVIEW PROCESS provided by the Research Integrity Adjudications
Panel (RIAP) at the US Department of Health and Human Services Departmental
Appeals Board (DAB) received a great deal of attention in the wake of the
Imanishi-Kari decision issued in June 1996. As an active member of the research
community, I have been interested in our ongoing attempts to address the problem
of scientific misconduct, a problem that has demanded more attention as research
has expanded and the competition for funding has affected every program. My
perspective on this problem has been influenced by being the only scientist
who has served on 2 RIAPs and worked with members of the DAB. The Imanishi-Kari
case, in particular, demonstrated to me how important adversarial adjudication
is for a fair and just outcome. Some critics attacked the RIAP process itself
as unnecessary or lacking in expertise. I believe that the criticisms misperceive
the essential role played by the RIAP in bringing finality to hotly contested
cases through full, fair, and public hearings.
Youngner JS. The Scientific Misconduct ProcessA Scientist's View From the Inside. JAMA. 1998;279(1):62-64. doi:10.1001/jama.279.1.62