Sir

The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) abhors misconduct in research and has repeatedly emphasized the need for clear, unambiguous and consistent definitions of misconduct. The accusations you make in Opinion (Nature 420, 253; 200210.1038/420253a) misrepresent our criticism of the US Office of Research Integrity's (ORI's) flawed survey questionnaire.

We do not object to data collection on misconduct. Institutions currently provide this information to the ORI on an annual basis. Our opinion is that the proposed ORI survey has serious deficiencies and will not produce useful data.

The ORI itself stated that previous attempts to measure misconduct were unsuccessful because they strayed from the federal misconduct definition. The issues of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism are too important to be confused with other questions, many of which involve legitimate differences of opinion. The survey's vague questions, such as asking respondents how many times they have observed colleagues “failing to cite references that contradict their current research” or “refusing to give peers reasonable access to unique research materials”, will give a misleading impression of how research is done. Although it is easy to circle a number, there may be wide variation in the ethical status of the examples being reported by individuals. Simple summaries of complex issues will lump legitimate actions together with malevolent cases.

Your editorial fails to inform readers that the ORI is not merely proposing to measure “other” misbehaviour, but also “perceived” misbehaviour, which is key to our objection. The survey will not generate a measure of misconduct, but a recording of hearsay or innuendo. For example, one question asks whether the respondent knows of colleagues “citing an article they had not read firsthand”. This orwellian approach, which encourages scientists to spy on each other's reading habits, will not lead to clarification of the ethical status of biomedical research.

You imply that there was a conspiracy behind the creation of the current definition of research misconduct. This is incorrect. The record clearly shows that there was an extended debate and many opportunities for public comment. We have supported efforts to improve education in research ethics, as I stated publicly in remarks at the 10 October Institute of Medicine town meeting. FASEB's August 2000 letter commenting on the draft PHS Policy for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research states: “Students and trainees must have instruction in the responsible conduct of research. But the extension of this requirement to 'all staff' including subcontractors and consultants will result in an enormous involvement of time and resources.” Our policy statements show our consistent commitment to the responsible conduct of research. There is no basis for implying that our position condones, supports or protects unethical behaviour.