Australia adopts new code on research conduct

The August 31 issue of Science has some interesting material, including:

Pages 1168-1170 comprise letters commenting upon a policy forum piece by Nisbet and Mooney on framing science. [317 Science 1168]

There is an article "Texas Voters Asked to Approve $3 Billion Cancer Initiative," which notes that if approved the state money will easily top the $226 million in grants the state got from the National Cancer Institute.

Elizabeth Finkel presents an article "New Misconduct Rules Aim to Minister to an Ailing System," about a new coe of research misconduct in Australia. The article states that Robert Loblay and others believe Australia needs an independent body like the US Office of Research Integrity [ORI]. IPBiz notes that the US ORI long ago ceased doing its own investigations. While it is "independent," initial charges are investigated by the grantee institution.

***
One IPBiz reader wrote:

Thanks. ORI only investigates if public health service money is involved (if university receives NIH, NSF money. ORI would not be involved if Defense money was involved. DoD has its own office for that.
ORI works with the universities' internal research integrity offices. Allegation first goes to university which begins investigation. University reports status of its invesygation to ORI and back and forth until issue is resolved.

check the ORI website for history of how it got started.
http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml

http://ori.dhhs.gov/


IPBiz notes that some Australians were complaining about the initial investigation (in Australia) being by the university, and IPBiz is noting that that is the same with for work funding by NIH/HHS in the USA. ORI reviews the findings made by the research grantee.