Current DHHS regulations require that policies and procedures developed by institutions to handle allegations of scientific misconduct include provisions for “undertaking diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.” Analogously, institutions receiving PHS funds are required to protect the confidentiality of those accused of such misconduct or, failing that, to restore their reputations if the allegations are not confirmed. Based on two surveys, one of whistleblowers and one of individuals accused but (...) exonerated of scientific misconduct, this paper examines how well the system works to protect both sets of participants in cases of alleged misconduct. Contrary to popular impressions created by notorious cases, substantial minorities of both whistleblowers and exonerated scientists experience no adverse outcomes at the time the allegations are made and pursued. During this period, however, whistleblowers report more negative outcomes and more severe negative outcomes than their accused but exonerated counterparts. In the longer run, majorities of both groups report little impact on different aspects of their careers or professional activities, though those who report any impacts generally report negative ones. The accused but exonerated, however, appear to fare worse than whistleblowers in impacts on several aspects of their personal lives; their mental health, physical health, self-esteem, and self-identity. (shrink)

In discussions of professional standards and ethical values it is reasonable to consider who will develop the codes of conduct and guidelines for behavior that will reflect the standards and values of the community. Also worthy of consideration is whether the standards or guidelines are enforceable, and how and to what extent they will be enforced. The development of guidelines or professional codes of conduct is a responsibility that has been adopted by many professional societies. Useful to this discussion is (...) an examination of the rationale behind the development of ethical codes by professional societies. The Ethics in Science Committee of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP) has examined the codes of some of its member societies and some observations regarding them are pertinent. The nature and uses of ethical statements, codes and guidelines developed by professional societies are multiple and diverse. Their enforcement raises both practical and ethical concerns. (shrink)

The papers in this issue are based on presentations by the authors at the 163nd National Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, Washington, 13–18 February 1997 in the session entitled Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: What the Scientific Community Can Do about Whistleblowing organized by Stephanie J. Bird and Diane Hoffman-Kim. The papers have been modified following double blind peer review.