Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T12:03:45.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Alternative Dispute Resolution and Research Misconduct

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2009

Louis M. Guenin
Affiliation:
Member of the Division of Medical Ethics of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Extract

“Any bad settlement,” the wise patent litigator Elmer S. Albritton once observed, “is better than a good lawsuit.” Given the notorious strain of court proceedings and the recognition that settlement does not always prove attainable, a popular movement has recently arisen in favor of “alternative dispute resolution” (or ADR). Indeed it has seemed to many who have participated as committee members, witnesses, or respondents in scientific misconduct cases that there ought to be some method of resolving such matters that is less vexing than traditional adjudication.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Wheeler, DL. A bitter feud over authorship. Chronicle of Higher Education 1995;41(06 2):A8.Google Scholar

2. Such processes are mandatory under federal regulations, 42 C.F.R. §50.103.

3. Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services. Newsletter 1995;March: 2.Google Scholar