The US Office of Research Integrity defines misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, plagiarism [‘FFP’], or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgements of data”.

Most US organizations have adopted this definition, with minor amendments or additions. Three years ago, however, the Commission on Research Integrity — which had been set up by Congress to, among other things, refine the so-called ‘FFP’ standard —proposed that there should be a more precise definition.

The commission suggested that a new definition would help the courts to decide complex cases. One suggestion was that the term ‘elimination’ should be included, referring to the deliberate omission of data considered inconvenient in ensuring the desired result.

But the proposed changes have encountered considerable hostility from scientists. Many fear, for example, that identifying such a practice as misconduct could lead to sloppy record-keeping becoming grounds for career-damaging misconduct allegations.

The recommendations are currently being tossed around the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, and this has given scientists another reason to worry. This is because any new definition to emerge from this office may apply government-wide, covering research funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and many other agencies involving energy, defence, education and veterans' hospitals.

Kenneth J. Ryan, a Harvard University physician and professor emeritus who chaired the Commission on Research Integrity, says that policymakers are aware of the hostility surrounding the proposals, and have therefore been in no hurry to conclude their deliberations, which have now stretched over years.

Some federal officials working on the new policies say that the slow pace is to be expected, given the importance of the issue. “It did, after all, take nearly a decade to formulate new regulations for human subjects research, ” says one official.

But scientists and officials involved in the work of the commission fear the importance of the issue has “dropped off the radar screen”, and that it will stay there until an egregious case reaches a high enough profile to prod policymakers into action.