From The Faculty Chair

Scientific Integrity

Lorna J. Gibson

Academic integrity is a core value of scientific research and of MIT. As faculty, we recognize that nothing is more essential than integrity in our educational, research, and service endeavors. More than a code of behavior, integrity imbues every fiber of the fabric of our community with the strength to keep our enterprise whole. It is therefore particularly painful to us as individuals and as a community when that integrity is challenged or violated. We must do all we can to make sure that our colleagues understand and share this core value, and honor those who embody it.

It is important for faculty to be aware of the Institute's policies and procedures in handling matters of academic misconduct.

Here, I summarize MIT Policies and Procedures 10.1 Procedures for Dealing with Academic Misconduct in Research and Scholarship (available at web.mit.edu/policies/ ). Confidential advice about a particular situation can be sought from the MIT Ombuds Office (x3-5921) or from senior academic officers.

Once an allegation of possible academic misconduct is reported, the Vice President for Research appoints either a fact-finding individual or committee to conduct an inquiry to determine if an investigation is warranted. The inquiry produces a written report, submitted to the Vice President for Research, summarizing the process, the information reviewed, and the conclusions. The VP for Research then recommends to the Provost whether or not an investigation should be initiated. If the Provost concludes that an investigation is warranted, he or she directs the VP for Research to appoint an individual or committee to perform an investigation. The investigation submits a written report to the VP for Research who then delivers the report to the Provost along with a recommendation for disciplinary action. The Provost then adjudicates the case, imposing any disciplinary actions that are warranted. MIT's three-step process of inquiry, investigation, and adjudication mirrors that of the federal government for cases of research misconduct (see, for example, The Office of Science and Technology Policy www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html or The Office of Research Integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services ori.dhhs.gov/).

Inquiries, investigations, and subsequent proceedings are to be conducted promptly and in confidence. Confidentiality in the review process is important, both to protect the reputations of all parties involved during the inquiry and investigation, as well as to minimize interference with the review itself.

Recently, questions of scientific misconduct at MIT have received media attention. In one case, an MIT faculty member admitted fabricating and falsifying research data.

The investigation determined that no one else in his research group was involved in the misconduct or was aware of it when it occurred. MIT made a public statement in this case to emphasize this finding. The courage of those who came forward with the allegation of misconduct in this case contributed to upholding our values of integrity and is to be applauded.

In the other case, of an allegation against two scientists at Lincoln Laboratory, the initial inquiry report was submitted to the Provost at the end of 2002. This report concluded that an investigation was warranted and posed a number of questions for the investigation. As required by federal guidelines, MIT then informed the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) that it intended to start an investigation of the case. In April 2003, MIT was informed by the MDA that the inquiry report contained classified information and that the proposed outside investigators would not be granted access to it or to other relevant classified documents. The MIT administration is moving on two tracks in this matter, as President Hockfield described in her letter to the community in September. As part of this process, President Hockfield has sought advice several times over the last six months from a faculty group comprising an extended version of the Research Policy Committee (Professors Suzanne Berger, Claude Canizares, Alice Gast, Lorna Gibson, Dan Hastings, June Matthews, Martin Schmidt, Jeffrey Shapiro, and Sheila Widnall).

The first track involves ongoing discussions by President Hockfield and others with several high government officials to identify a mutually satisfactory process for an investigation. As this matter is still ongoing, any future investigation should maintain as much confidentiality as possible. On a second track, at the October 19 faculty meeting, President Hockfield announced the formation of an ad hoc committee to "(i) identify the factors that have complicated and delayed the satisfactory resolution of the allegation of scientific misconduct by employees at Lincoln Labs, (ii) determine the implications, if any, for how the Institute should conduct itself in the future, and (iii) recommend any changes in policy and/or practice that would help avoid a recurrence." This review would not address the specific allegation of research misconduct itself. The members of the review committee are: Professor Claude Canizares, Associate Provost, Institute Professor Millie Dresselhaus, Professor David Litster, former Vice President for Research, and Dr. Gerald Dineen, MIT Professor of Electrical Engineering (1971-1981) and former Director of Lincoln Laboratory (1970-1977).

As faculty, we share a strong interest in protecting the research environment in the most open, thoughtful, and inventive form possible. MIT's policies on academic misconduct, which have served the Institute well over many years, seek to maintain the integrity of the academic enterprise while preserving the rights of the accused.

	Back to top
	Send your comments