Articles on Law, Science, and Engineering

ENDNOTES

1. Presently, Dr. Lyle W. Bivens.[return to text]
2. The information in this and the following two sections is taken from the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority; Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health dated January 19, 1994 (Statement). The Statement is published at 59 F.R. 2856.[return to text]
3. These are the panels that hear scientists' appeals of ORI's proposed findings of misconduct.[return to text]
4. 59 F.R. 29809.[return to text]
5. The PHS definition of "scientific misconduct" is "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretation or judgment of data." For additional information see this Engineering and Law series in the September, 1992 and December, 1992 issues of EMB Magazine.[return to text]
6. There is a concept of "constructive malice" or "implied malice" wherein malice may be inferred from any deliberate cruel act, however sudden.[return to text]
7. The information in this section is derived from the Revised Guidelines for Hearings Before the Research Integrity Adjudications Panel of the Departmental Appeals Board published on June 9, 1994 (Guidelines). The Guidelines are published at 59 F.R. 29809.[return to text]
8. For further guidance on ex parte communications, see 45 C.F.R. 16.17.[return to text]
9. It is possible to fall under some of the HHS rules without doing anything. For example, any individual who by qualifications is a potential candidate for HHS benefits can be a subject of the PHS ALERT System.[return to text]

    

   ---