In this Editorial, Michael Lauer and Mark Barnes argue that creating more awareness of misconduct by individuals in the scientific enterprise could go a long way toward rebuilding the scientific community’s credibility. While some progress has been made in the way of encouraging universities and research institutions to share information about staff with potential future employers, it is “likely too piecemeal to have a major impact,” say the authors. They point to the medical field’s National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) – established in 1990 and hosted by the Department of Health and Human Services – as a model for a better approach. State medical boards, health care entities, and certain other interested parties must report any adverse medical staff actions to the NPDB. Access to it is limited to health care entities so that information about professional problems is available only to prospective employers and state medical boards. “Surveys of NPDB users indicate that the law is working as intended, helping institutions avoid potentially problematic hires but not acting as an arbitrary or capricious blacklist,” say Lauer and Barnes. They advocate for a national scientist databank similar to the NPDB. “Discovering a previous behavioral problem [in the data bank] would not bar an institution from going ahead with the hire, but at least there would be transparency so that preventive steps could be taken by the new employer,” they say.
Science
More transparency needed on misconduct
9-Apr-2026