Coping with fraud

The tardiness of actions by Harvard officials when faced with confessed fraudulent research conducted by John Darsee is contrasted with the more rapid responses by authorities in the cases of William T. Summerlin (Sloan-Kettering) and Vijay Soman (Yale).     

San Diego's tough stand on research fraud

Robert Slutsky, a researcher at the medical school of the University of California at San Diego, fabricated cardioradiological research data, and was exposed when a senior researcher compared published papers. Two nondepartmental committees determined that 13 papers were fraudulent while 55 others were of questionable validity. Coauthors, many of whom had been listed as a courtesy or a favor, were asked to defend their work, and the whole issue of emphasis on publications was examined. The failure of senior staff to catch the fraud earlier and the failure of fellows and assistants to alert higher-ups were also reported. Recommendations made concerning peer review focused on quality, contribution of coauthors, and development of guidelines for supervision of trainees and standards of production.     

从伦理的角度遏制会计造假

会计信息失真不仅会给投资者造成巨大的经济损失,而且还扰乱了市场经济秩序,其危害是非常严重的。会计造假既有会计本人的因素,也有单位负责人的责任,其中,会计人员的道德失衡、伦理丧失是关键性因素。遏制会计造假应从培养会计人员良好的职业道德入手,教育他们从思想上防微杜渐。     

跳远运动中跑跳衔接的重要性浅析

跳远运动是体育竞技的重要项目之一,而诸多研究表面助跑速度和起跳的紧密衔接是获得跳远高分主要技术环节,通过对安徽广播影视职业技术学院男生20人的教学对比试验,采用文献资料法、实验法和数里统计等方法,从而表明快速稳定的助跑和合理有效的起跳相结合是影响跳远运动成绩的关键技术因素,对取得跳远的优异成绩具有非常决定性的作用。     

Harvard delays in reporting fraud

A detailed account of the John Darsee fraud case at the Harvard Medical School is presented, describing the nature of Darsee's work at Harvard and his relationships with colleagues and mentors both before and after his confession to fabrication of data. University authorities took little action against Darsee during the six months before NIH questioning of discrepancies in one of Darsee's studies led to public disclosure. Committees at Harvard and NIH will investigate.     

Scientific fraud probed at AAAS meeting

Fraud in science was the topic of a panel discussion at the 1985 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Participants identified competitive pressures in universities for promotion and financial rewards in the form of research grants as encouraging fraudulent practices. An excessive emphasis in some laboratories on publication was also held responsible for fraud or other misconduct that increases a scientist's list of citations. Among the suggestions put forward for solving the problem were more careful screening of applicants for research positions, stricter laboratory supervision, longer-term federal grants, and limitations on the number of his or her papers that a researcher is allowed to cite in grant applications.