Literature DB >> 8373492

Policy development lessons from two federal initiatives: protecting human research subjects and handling misconduct in science.

J P Porter1, A K Dustira.   

Abstract

The authors compare and contrast two policy development exercises--one that resulted in the publication of a common federal policy for the protection of human research subjects, and the other that is under way to develop a government-wide common policy for addressing misconduct in science. The article offers some basic lessons derived from these interagency activities and may shed some light on the issues that institutions face in developing their own policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in science. These lessons include, among others: lead from a position of authority; use smaller working groups to draft text or work out differences; never underestimate the time needed to elucidate where all the participants are coming from; garner support of key players; timing is everything; and when presented with lemons, make lemonade. Although the process is not yet finished, interagency work is developing concerning misconduct in science. The different participants agree in theory that coordination is desirable, but they can be understandably concerned that they might have to relinquish some of their autonomy in setting policies for activities supported by their agencies. Although it may seem that the federal government moves slowly, often there is much going on behind the scenes, and often that work can be as important as, if not more important than, the task at hand.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology; Legal Approach; Office of Science and Technology Policy; Twentieth Century

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8373492     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199309000-00034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  2 in total

1.  Developing a federal policy on research misconduct.

Authors:  Sybil Francis
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. Government's attempt to define research misconduct.

Authors:  David H Guston
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.525

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.