Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Science 16 August 1996:
Vol. 273. no. 5277, pp. 873 - 875
DOI: 10.1126/science.273.5277.873
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

News

Jock Friedly

One of the most high-profile scientific misconduct cases collapsed recently when all charges against immunologist Thereza Imanishi-Kari were dismissed. The crucial ingredient in keeping the case grinding along was the active interest of Representative John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of a key congressional subcommittee. Subcommittee investigators, some of whom were being paid by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), were involved in virtually every aspect of the case, from the selection of evidence to its public dissemination.


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Due Process in Investigations of Research Misconduct.
M. M. Mello and T. A. Brennan (2003)
N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 1280-1286
   Full Text »    PDF »


To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)