Author: Michael Kalichman, 2001
Contributors: P.D. Magnus, Dena Plemmons
Updates: Rhiannon Kennard, 2016
Someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act.
(NAS, 1995)
While this obligation might be met by formal reporting of the alleged misconduct, this is only one of many paths open to the potential whistleblower.
Definition
According to the 2010 definition from the US Office of Special Counsel, a whistleblower discloses information he or she reasonably believes evidences:
a violation of a law, rule, or regulation
gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, or abuse of authority
a substantial and specific danger to public health or public safety
Roles and Perspective
Whistleblower
The whistleblower should (Gunsalus, 2010; Keith-Spiegel, 2010):
Keep good records
Avoid the mistake of an inappropriate allegation, begin by asking questions and seeking perspective
Appropriately report or respond to possible misconduct
Not take responsibility for investigating the misconduct or mete out justice
Maintain objectivity with a goal of identifying and correcting any possible misunderstandings
Accused
Even though he/she may feel threatened or offended by the accusation, the accused should:
Properly document all necessary information
Cooperate with any possible investigation
Maintain objectivity with a goal of identifying and correcting any possible misunderstandings
Necessity and Obligation
Because of secretive nature of many research environments, misconduct will only come to light if someone close to the project blows the whistle.
This relative secrecy is driven by many different factors, for example:
sheer practicality
protection of credit or intellectual property rights
worries about the possible misuse of preliminary data
Consequences
Both whistleblowers and those accused may suffer whether or not the allegations are ultimately sustained.
As with good research, the integrity of an allegation of research misconduct is best served by keeping clear, defensible records of what happened and when.
Background
The National Science Foundation states that: Whistleblower disclosures save lives as well as taxpayer dollars. They play a critical role in keeping our government honest, efficient and accountable. Recognizing that whistleblowers root out waste, fraud and abuse, and protect public health and safety, federal laws strongly encourage employees to disclose wrongdoing. Federal laws also protect whistleblowers from retaliation.
Why be a Whistleblower?
There is a considerable range of opinions among scientists about how to respond to perceived misconduct -- and an even greater difference between scientists and administrators (Wenger et al., 1999).
Yet, as a 1995 publication of the National Academy of Sciences advises:
Someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act.
In addition to this proposed obligation, other reasons to favor whistleblowing include:
Personal sense of responsibility
Protect against the risk of wasted resources
Clarify something that may either not in fact be wrong or is easily remedied
Decrease the risk that someone else will uncover the misconduct and questions will be asked about why you didn't say anything
Examples of Whistleblowing
Whistleblower
Incident
References (see Resources)
Roger Boisjoly
Actions within Morton Thiokol prior to the O-ring failure believed to be the cause of the Challenger disaster in 1986
Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, 1986
Robert Sprague
Data fabrication by Stephen Breuning
Holden, 1987
Jeffrey Wigand
Knowledge of nicotine's addictive properties within the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company
Gleick, 1996
Margot O'Toole
Alleged misconduct by Thereza Imanishi-Kari, ultimately rejected on final appeal
Kevles, 2000
Peter Mock and John German
Volkswagen software designed to mask true emissions
Kell, 2015
Consequences for Whistleblowers
Unfortunately, the evidence is compelling that whistleblowers, not just the accused, suffer adverse consequences . Based on self-reports (Research Triangle Institute, 1995):
Over 60% of whistleblowers suffered at least one negative consequence, such as:
Being pressured to withdraw their allegation
Being ostracized by colleagues
Suffering a reduction in research support, or
Being threatened with a lawsuit.
Approximately 10% noted significant negative consequences, such as being fired or losing support.
However, fewer than 18% of those suffering the most severe impact on their careers reported that they would be unwilling to come forward with allegations again.
This potential for adverse consequences makes it problematic to place an obligation for whistleblowing on scientists in training, such as postdocs, graduate students, or undergraduate students.
How Should I Report Misconduct?
Because of the serious consequences of an allegation of misconduct, it is important to be clear about the allegation. This concern is particularly relevant for someone with relatively little experience in research or in a specific area of research.
To avoid the mistake of an inappropriate allegation:
Begin by asking questions and seeking perspective. Depending on circumstances, it may be appropriate to talk to:
Peers
More senior members of the research group
Someone in an ombuds program, or
Even the individual whose conduct is in question.
Clearly distinguish between facts and speculation in presenting an allegation and supporting documentation.
Avoid the trap of inferring motives on the part of others.
Instead, stick to the facts of the case, which will reduce the risk of a loss of credibility.
These considerations do not diminish the need for whistleblowing.
Regulations and Guidelines
Scope of Regulations
To foster fair and timely responses to allegations of research misconduct, regulations typically include:
safeguards for informants and for the subjects of allegations
an expectation of objectivity and expertise
adherence to reasonable time limits, and
respect for confidentiality.
Whistleblowers are protected under rulings from both state and federal governments.
Legal Protections
Whistleblowers are entitled to a number of legal protections.
The first amendment to the Constitution, guarantees free speech, giving whistleblowers legal protection from retaliation.
The federal False Claims Act is more far-reaching (US Code, 1986):
Originally developed to protect the federal government from fraudulent contractors during the Civil War, the Act provides that any individual with primary knowledge of fraudulent use of federal funds can bring charges.
If a defendant in a False Claims case is found liable, then the whistleblower can be awarded 15-30% of the resulting settlement.
The False Claims Act also specifically calls for significant remedies for any discriminatory action that can be shown to have been taken to retaliate against an employee who has presented a case under the Act.
Current federal policies to protect whistleblowers from retaliation are covered, in part, by:
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989
Department of Health and Human Services (2000)
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, which led to the establishment of a Whistleblower Ombusdman to:
educate agency employees about prohibitions on retaliation for whistleblowing, as well as employees' rights and remedies if subjected to retaliation for making a protected disclosure.
The regulations are intended to place obligations on institutions both to prevent and to remedy retaliation against whistleblowers.
In addition to federal regulations:
Most states and/or institutions typically have specific protections for whistleblowers.
Most institutions, and many professional societies and journals, offer guidelines to support the role of the whistleblower.
Guidelines can have as much or more importance than the regulations in reducing the chance of adverse outcomes.
Discussion
Discussion Questions
List at least three reasons that the integrity of science is dependent in part on whistleblowing.
Describe the relative advantages and disadvantages for an individual who makes an allegation of research misconduct.
List at least three steps a potential whistleblower can take to decrease the likelihood of adverse consequences.
As a student, should I discard data that does not showcase the point I am trying to make?
As a professor, if my student’s results seems too good to be true, should I ask them to show me their raw data? What if the results are from a fellow professor?
Case Studies
Resources
Department of Health and Human Services (2000): Public Health Service Standards for the Protection of Research Misconduct Whistleblowers. Notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal Register November 28, 2000 65(229):70830-70841. http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/nprm_reg.shtml
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1995): On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas
Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (1986): Report to the President. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm
Research Triangle Institute (1995): Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in science cases. Report submitted to Office of Research Integrity. http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/final.pdf