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. (shrink)

Even with thirty years of academic experience under his belt, nothing could have prepared the medical school department chairman for the unexpected and protracted course of events that would follow his allegations of scientific misconduct against an associate professor in his department. In this actual case of scientific misconduct whistleblowing, the university allowed the accused professor to resign, but the chairman persisted in seeking a full investigation of the matter. Under the direction of the Office of Scientific Integrity of the (...) Department of Health and Human Services, the institution eventually reopened the investigation, and concluded that the accused professor had fabricated and falsified data, and had plagiarized the unpublished method of other investigators. Thereafter, the professor agreed to a voluntary exclusion from receiving federal funds for a period of three years.Despite the fact that the chairman's allegations proved true, his involvement as a “whistleblower” entailed consequences that censured rather than encouraged his behavior. (shrink)

We believe that members of the scientific community have a primary obligation to promote integrity in research and that this obligation includes a duty to report observations that suggest misconduct to agencies that are empowered to examine and evaluate such evidence. Consonant with this responsibility, we became whistleblowers in the case of Herbert Needleman. His 1979 study (Needleman et al., 1979), on the effects of low-level lead exposure on children, is widely cited and highly influential in the formulation of public (...) policy on lead. The opportunity we had to examine subject selection and data analyses from this study was prematurely halted by efforts to prevent disclosure of our observations. Nevertheless, what we saw left us with serious concerns. We hope that the events here summarized will contribute to revisions of process by which allegations of scientific misconduct are handled and that such revisions will result in less damage to scientists who speak out. (shrink)