Washington

The US health department has issued comprehensive rules for handling scientific misconduct cases. And instead of kicking up a stink, most research organizations say that they find the regulations to their liking.

On 19 April, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a 27-page notice in the Federal Register, which publishes rules for US federal organizations. The department has narrowed its current definition of research misconduct and set out procedures for universities and government officials investigating allegations of scientific wrong-doing by federally funded researchers.

The regulations are probably the final chapter in a decade-long debate over what exactly constitutes scientific misconduct. And the department, which oversees most US biomedical research, has restricted the definition to “fabrication, falsification and plagiarism” — the offences that most researchers agree are egregious. The department has ditched the inclusion, in its current rules, of the ominous phrase “or other practices”, which scientists criticized as vague and overly broad.

Last week's notice expands the definition of misconduct to say that it can occur during the review of grant proposals and journal articles. It also limits the role of whistle-blowers in investigations, stating that complainants may not participate except as witnesses.

“What they have created is a consistent, clean definition,” says David Korn, senior vice-president for biomedical and health sciences research at the Association of American Medical Colleges. “Everybody understands what it means.”

Not everyone shares Korn's cheerful perspective. “They are now saying a whistle-blower is merely someone who reports, and then stands aside,” complains Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a New York-based patient advocacy group. “That is outrageous. Who else knows how to guide the investigation to evidence of the violations?”

Among other things, the revised policy requires complaints of misconduct to be filed within six years of the alleged event. The notice is open to public comment until 15 June, after which a final version will be published.