Clinical research misdemeanours include a broad spectrum of misdeeds that misappropriate an unfair advantage or harm the rights of others. There is no internationally accepted definition of such malpractices and no generalized procedure to facilitate their reporting or correction. Those who do report research misdemeanours are often stigmatized as ‘whistleblowers’, a term that has acquired many negative connotations. Frequently, whistleblowers encounter many personal conflicts and/or may suffer victimization in their working environment. There remains a need for an internationally harmonized approach to manage these unacceptable problems. Resolution of such important issues should be catalysed by the impending need for European Union states to implement Good Clinical Practice Directive 2001/20/EC into national law.
PapworthMH (ed): Human Guinea Pigs — Experimentation on Man.Boston: Beacon Press, 1967
2.
BroadWJ: Imbroglio at Yale. BMJ1980; 286: 2003–2006
3.
BroadWWadeN (eds): Betrayers of the Truth.New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982
4.
BellR: Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise and Political Influence in Scientific Research.New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1992
5.
MillerDJHersenM (eds): Research Fraud in the Behavioural and Biomedical Sciences.New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1992
6.
WellsF: Fraud and Misconduct in Clinical Research. In: The Textbook of Pharmaceutical Medicine (GriffinJPO'GradyJWellsFO, eds. D'Arcy PF, exec. ed). Belfast: The Queen's University of Belfast, 1993; pp341–355
LockS: Research misconduct: a résumé of recent events. In: Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research, 2nd edn (LockSWellsF, eds). London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1996; pp14–39
9.
WellsF: The British pharmaceutical industry's response. In: Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research, 2nd edn (LockSWellsF, eds). London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1996; pp90–113
10.
WilliamsonAWhiteC, (eds): Committee on Publication Ethics. The COPE Report 2001.London: BMJ Publishing Group, p26
11.
HawkesN: Medical fraud too easy, says professor. The Times, Friday 23 February 2001
12.
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry: Good Clinical Research Practice Guidelines.London: ABPI, 1988
13.
Medical Research Council: MRC Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials.London: Medical Research Council Publications Department, 1998
14.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use in European Union Directive on GCP in Clinical Trials. Official Journal of the European Communities, 1 May 2001; L121, pp0034–0044
15.
The International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use.ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guidelines: Efficacy Topic E6 ‘Guideline for Good Clinical Practice’ Step 5. Available at: www.ich.org/pdfICH/e6.pdf (accessed 15 July 2002)
16.
AnkierSI: (Alarm) bells and (blowing) whistles. Clin Res Focus2002; 13: 5–11
17.
FarthingMJG: Introduction. In: Committee on Publication Ethics The COPE Report 2001 (WilliamsonAWhiteC, eds). London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001; pp3–4
18.
Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research.London: London Royal College of Physicians, 1991
19.
Integrity and Misconduct in Research.Washington: Commission on Research Integrity, 1996
20.
Policy and Procedures for Inquiring into Allegations of Scientific Misconduct.London: Medical Research Council, 1997. Available at: www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-mis_con.pdf (accessed 15 July 2002)
21.
NylennaMAndersenDDahlquistGSarvasMAakvaagAon behalf of the National Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries: Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. Lancet1999; 354: 57–61
22.
NylennaM: Experiences of fraud and misconduct in healthcare research in Norway. In: Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 3rd edn (LockSWellsFFarthingM, eds). London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001; pp134–139
23.
Commission on Research Integrity.Integrity and Misconduct in Research.Washington: DHHS, 1996
24.
Integrity and misconduct in research. In: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity (Ryan Commission) to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the House Committee on Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 3 November 1995. Available at: www.gopher.faseb.org/opar/cri/html (accessed 15 July 2002)
25.
NimmoWS (ed): Joint Consensus Conference on Misconduct in Biomedical Research. Proc R Coll Physicians Edinb2000; 30 (Suppl 7): 2
26.
RennieDGunsalusCK: Regulations on scientific misconduct: lessons from the US experience. In: Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 3rd edn (LockSWellsFFarthingM, eds). London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001; pp28–30
27.
HussonJ-MDemarezJ-P: Fraud and misconduct in medical research in France. In: Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 3rd edn (LockSWellsFFarthingM, eds). London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001; pp152–169
28.
HorsnellM: GP faked consent form in trial of HRT drug. The Times, Tuesday 20 February 2001
VintenG: Whistle while you work in the health-related professions?J R Soc Health1994; 114: 256–262
31.
HuntG: Conclusion: a new accountability? In: Whistleblowing in the Health Service: Accountability, Law and Professional Practice (HuntG, ed). London: Edward Arnold, 1995; pp55–158
32.
SoekenKSoekenD: A Survey of Whistleblowers: Their Stressors and Coping Strategies.Laurel, Maryland: Association of Mental Health Specialities, 1987
33.
LennaneKJ: Whistleblowing: a health issue. BMJ1993; 307: 667–670
34.
GobertJPunchM: Whistleblowers, the Public Interest, and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The Modern Law Review2000; 63: 25–54
35.
No authors listed: Five times: coincidence or something more serious?BMJ1998; 316: 1736–1737
36.
DyerC: Compensation claims expected to follow GMC's findings in Bristol case. BMJ1998; 316: 1691
37.
TreasureT: Lessons from the Bristol case. BMJ1998; 316: 1685–1686
38.
DyerC: Whistleblower in Bristol case says funding was put before patients. BMJ1999; 319: 1387
39.
British Broadcasting Corporation: Blood on the Carpet. BBC 2 television broadcast on 30 January 2001 at 9.50 pm
40.
Act on Research Advise, No. 676 dated 19th August 1997 and effective from 1 January 1999 (Danish law). Available at: www.forsk.dk/eng/publ/infopjece98/rapeng.htm (accessed 15 July 2002)
BungenerM: Procedures for inquiring into allegations of scientific misconduct at INSERM. In: Ethics of Research, Max Planck Forum 2 (PlehnG, ed). Munich: Max Planck Publishers, 1999
HortonR: Scientific misconduct: exaggerated fear but still real and requiring a proportionate response. Lancet1999; 354: 7
47.
WeberW: European clinical research scandal investigators question self-regulation. Lancet2000; 356: 52
48.
Stegemann-BoehlS: Dealing with misconduct in science: German efforts. In: Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 3rd edn (LockSWellsFFarthingM, eds). London, BMJ Publishing Group, 2001; p146
WoollenS: Patient misuse and investigator fraud in clinical trials: what can be done and who's in charge anyway? Responsibility in today's clinical trial environment, drug information association meeting, June 2000. Available at: www.fda.gov/cder/present/index.htm (accessed 27 May 2002)
51.
BorrieG: Blowing the whistle: Business ethics and accountability?The Political Quarterly1996; 141: 142
52.
In violation of the 1986 Federal False Claims Act, Title 31. Money and Finance; Subtitle III Financial Management; Chapter 37 Claims; Subchapter III, Claims against the United States Government; Sections 3729-3733. Available at: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/31/3729.html (accessed 15 July 2002)
53.
SmithR: Misconduct in research: editors respond. BMJ1997; 315: 201–202
54.
Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, 1 March 2001, Department of Health (www.doh.gov.uk/research)
55.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, Whistleblowing in the NHS, HSC 1999/198
56.
Medical Act 1983 (UK Statutory Law). Statutes on Medical Law, 2nd edn (JonesMAMorrisAE, eds). London: Blackstone Press Ltd, 1999; pp121–133
57.
AllenI (ed): The Handling of Complaints by the GMC — a Study of Decision-making and Outcomes.The Policy Study Institute, 2nd August 2000
58.
AnkierSI: Confronting clinical research fraud and misconduct in the UK. Clinical Researcher2002; 2: 20–24
59.
AnkierSI: A Regulator (‘Prescribed Person’) for Clinical Research. Clin Res Focus2002; 13: 18–19
60.
A National Panel for Research Integrity: a proposed blueprint for the prevention and investigation of misconduct in biomedical research. Proc R Coll Physicians Edinb2001; 31: 253–255
61.
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, c23.London: HMSO
62.
The Medicines (Standard Provisions for Licenses and Certificates) Regulations 1971 Schedule 1, Part II; The Medicines (Exemption from Licenses and Certificates) (Clinical Trials) Order 1995, SI 1995, No 2809; The Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisation etc) Regulations 1994, SI 1994, No 3144
63.
AnkierSI: Blowing the whistle. Health Management2002; 6: 17–18
