Interior adopts code of conduct

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

A scientific code of conduct has been adopted by the Interior Department in response to biologists' submitting falsified samples during a national study of the threatened Canadian lynx.

The code was recommended by the department's inspector general after an investigation confirmed the fake samples were submitted during a 1999-2000 survey of the lynx's habitat -- a fraud first reported by The Washington Times.

The "Code of Scientific Conduct" states that employees will not "hinder the scientific and information gathering activities of others nor engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or other scientific research or professional misconduct."

Employees must report their activities "honestly, thoroughly and without conflict of interest." And, they must "place quality and objectivity of scientific activities and information ahead of personal gain or allegiance to individuals or organizationsm" the code states.

Under the new federal policy, misconduct is defined as fabricating, falsifying or plagiarizing research. Safeguards are also included for employees accused of misconduct in the future, including confidentiality.

"The scientific code of conduct will help ensure the American people that the research and analysis we use has been conducted according to the highest standards of the scientific community," Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton said.

The inspector general and a General Accounting Office investigation found that federal and state scientists had sent lynx hair samples from captive lynx, a bobcat and at least one lynx pelt to a laboratory as part of an effort to map and protect the elusive creature's habitat in 16 states and 57 national forests.

The scientists falsely labeled the samples as having come from national forests in the Northwest. After their actions were reported, the scientists said they were testing the lab's ability to positively identify lynx through DNA samples and never meant to contaminate the study.

Neither the IG nor the GAO investigations confirmed the scientists' intentions.