alleged scientific dishonesty. The responsibility for
investigation and actions to be taken against those
found guilty remains firmly with the universities
and research institutes. All such cases are reported
to the Council, which gives nonlegally binding
advice.
Denmark
Denmark has had the Danish Committee on Scien-
tific Dishonesty since 1992, chaired by a High
Court Judge. This committee was charged with
investigating cases and giving a formal opinion.
After 1999 the committee was split into three, only
one officially covering health and medical science,
but the three groups often sit together to consider
cases. The committees do not have sanctions as
such, but can recommend sanctions to be taken, or
can decide to make a report to the police.
Norway
There has been a National Committee for the Eva-
luation of Dishonesty in Health Research in Nor-
way since 1994, charged with preventing and
investigating scientific dishonesty, based heavily
on the Danish committee. The committee reports
findings to the institution and the involved parties,
but again leaves any sanctions up to the employers.
Sweden
In Sweden, the institutions conduct their own
investigations, with an expert advisory group,
founded in 1997 and linked to the Swedish Medical
Research Council (MFR), providing guidance. It
too follows the Danish model of investigations.
There have been proposals recently for a central
committee to take over some of the elements of the
investigation.
Germany
The largest academic research funding agency in
Germany, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(German Research Foundation, known as DFG)
formulated ‘rules of good scientific practice’ in
1999 after a major scandal in which 47 published
papers came under suspicion, with the aim of
advising and assisting researchers nationwide.
Every institution in Germany also has its own
committee to investigate and suggest actions in
cases of suspected research misconduct, and the
federal La ̈nder inspectors play a supportive role.
The Committee of Inquiry on Allegations of Scien-
tific Misconduct (Ausschuss zur Untersuchung von
Vorwu ̈rfen wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens)
investigates allegations of scientific misconduct
carried out by those who receive DFG funding
and members of DFG bodies involved in consulta-
tion and decision-making processes. If scientific
misconduct is established, the committee’s find-
ings are forwarded to the central steering Joint
Committee with a recommendation.France
The principle medical body in France established a
group of experts in 1999, the De ́le ́gation a`l’Inte ́grite ́
Scientifique, to focus on both the prevention of
research fraud and the sanctions to be taken against
individuals or institutions, although there have been
few official reports of fraud. There are detailed
sequential procedures to be followed, and much use
has been made of the experiences of other countries.United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, a Joint Consensus Confer-
ence on Misconduct in Biomedical Research was
held in Edinburgh in 1999 with all major stake-
holders and interested parties represented. The
panel’s main conclusion was that ‘a national panel
should be established – with public representation –
to provide advice and assistance on request’. The
suggestions for the remit of this panel included the
development of models of good practice, assistance
with investigation of alleged misconduct and the
collection and publication of information on inci-
dents of research fraud and misconduct. It was only
in 2004 that a National Panel for Research Integrity49.5 WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT HANDLING RESEARCH FRAUD? 637