Sir

An increasing number of scientific frauds in US universities are being reported in the media. But do university and federal authorities wish to resolve the problem quickly and effectively? I think not, and I think this is a matter of serious concern.

Fabrication of scientific data, malpractice and violations of federal regulations in university laboratories supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are not only an outrage to all honest scientists, but are also serious federal felonies. Nevertheless, the NIH allows university authorities to carry out an administrative investigation when suspicion of fraud is reported.

University authorities have neither the apparatus nor the authority for a formal investigation: they cannot subpoena witnesses and evidence or seize relevant documents. University committees do not have the legal authority to prevent a defendant's attorneys from resorting to unethical pressure to discourage the whistle-blower and witnesses. Indeed, university authorities themselves are not protected from expensive lawsuits.

It is only at the end of the administrative investigation (which typically takes three to five years) that the university has to inform NIH whether federal grants are involved in the alleged fraud. If the university has decided there has been fraud, it has to pay back all the grants to NIH. This is an unfortunate conflict of interest.

Federal prosecutors inquire into scientific fraud only if the whistle-blower files a qui tam: an action aimed to formally involve the responsibility of federal authorities in the investigation. This usually happens after two to three years, when evidence has long since been contaminated or has disappeared. The federal prosecutor's office is not interested in considering the criminal aspect of the case (violations of federal laws and flagrant fraud in applications for federal grants) or in punishing the defendant. It does not even recommend a probation period during which the defendant cannot receive federal funds. It just collects sufficient evidence to reach a settlement with university attorneys, to recover part of the grants paid by the federal administration.

A recent case at the University of California at San Diego is a classic example (see Nature 385, 566; 1997). In October 1993, the dean's office started an investigation against a professor of medicine for allegations of fabricated research results and violation of federal policies on human and animal experimentation and biosafety standards. In 1995, an ad hoc university committee found evidence of fabricated data in at least two articles reporting work supported by NIH grants, but this was not sufficient evidence for misuse of NIH funds: the university biosafety committee sanctioned the scientist for violation of biosafety regulations concerning the use of the AIDS virus. The scientist appealed to the academic senate and in December 1996 a panel of university scientists (colleagues of the defendant) cleared the scientist of all accusations of scientific fraud or violation of federal regulations.

Interestingly, just one week after the favourable conclusion of the academic senate, the US attorney's office decided to act against the defendant and the university, suggesting that the government was not convinced by the conclusion of the university investigation. About one year later, a settlement of only $135,000 was reached between the government and the University of California for the reimbursement of federal grants for work containing fabricated data. The defendant was released from any civil and criminal charges. Surely such a low settlement sends a conflicting message to scientists.

Federal legislators must re-examine the problem of scientific fraud — in particular the agreement between NIH and universities — and implement federal judiciary structures to handle from the beginning investigations of scientists accused of fraud (civil as well as criminal aspects), to protect whistle-blowers, and to apply an appropriate punishment in a timely fashion. Such a reform is needed to encourage some scientists to consider more carefully how taxpayers' money is used in their laboratories and to adopt higher standards of integrity.