The National Science Foundation published a notice pertaining to training in responsible conduct of research. The notice is available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-19930.htm.

The notice states, “Effective January 4, 2010, NSF will require that, at the time of proposal submission to NSF, a proposing institution’s Authorized Organizational Representative certify that the institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research….training plans are not required to be included in proposals submitted to NSF, institutions are advised that they are subject to review upon request.”

It is expected that “NSF also will modify its standard award conditions to clearly stipulate that institutions are responsible for verifying that undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers supported by NSF to conduct research have received RCR training.”

ORI would like to hear your thoughts about the procedures described in NSF’s notice.

A ruling last month by the United States Supreme Court (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527(2009) requires forensic lab analysts providing evidence in criminal matters to be available to appear in court to be cross-examined about their test results. A written report of results, without the lab technician’s availability to provide testimonial support, is no longer sufficient evidence of the results. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, allowing criminal defendants to confront forensic lab analysts at trial pursuant to the confrontation clause in the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, should remind research scientists that the techniques and operational decision-making of everyone in their laboratory, not just their test results and conclusions, can be subject to scrutiny and lab analysts may need to be at-the-ready to defend them.

If required by peer reviewers, journal editors, and publishers, would you or your technicians be able to communicate and document the quality of the work performed?

Should peer reviewers of grants and publications, journal editors and publishers, and the public at large continue to assume the reliability of research results without evidence of the quality of the techniques and procedures used?

If you or a member of your lab was accused of research misconduct, would you have sufficient documentation to support your claimed results?

John Galland
Director, Division of Education & Integrity