ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND The quality of scientific information has been the subject of debate for some time. The areas of concern range from intentional fraud to inappropriate research procedures and inadvertent errors and omissions. Some causes for faulty information have been conflict of interest, negligence, financial profit, or personal ambitions. The definition of scientific misconduct has been the subject of debate (Kaiser 1999). Several authors (Angell 1996; Bell 1992; Goodstein 1996; Hagmann 1999) have proposed a variety of solutions. Seemingly appropriate solutions have been questioned (Bell 1992; Goodstein 1996). For applications to the government, two methods come to mind for ascertaining the reliability of information: checks and balances at the applicant's level and regulatory oversight. The call for reliable scientific information as the basis for major decisions leads to the question of what criteria should apply to make information reliable and what constitutes a major decision. Aside from outright fraud, which is not acceptable by any standard, standards must be defmed as well as the relationship between those standards and the significance of the information they cover.
