Expressing a consensus on candour

Article metrics

If governments are to define deception as research misconduct, science deserves clarity and rigour in the definition.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).

  2. 2

    Guenin, L. M. & Davis, B. D. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2, 47–54 (1996).

  3. 3

    Guenin, L. M. Acad. Med. 71, 595–603 (1996).

  4. 4

    National Academy of Sciences. Responsible Science (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1992

  5. 5

    64 Fed. Reg. 55723 (14 Oct. 1999).

  6. 6

    Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.

  7. 7

    Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Letter to William Raub, 15 March 1996.

  8. 8

    60 Fed. Reg. 10588 (27 Feb. 1995).

  9. 9

    In re Imanishi-Kari, Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Research Integrity Adjudications Panel, Decision No. 1582 (1996).

  10. 10

    Guenin, L. M. Science 271, 1790 (1996).

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Louis M. Guenin.

Additional information

Further commentary on the author's and OSTP's proposals may be found at

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guenin, L. Expressing a consensus on candour. Nature 402, 577–578 (1999) doi:10.1038/45068

Download citation

Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.