The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support â€" or distort â€" practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge. The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated. Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.

Recent years have seen a growing tendency for social scientists to collect biological specimens such as blood, urine, and saliva as part of large-scale household surveys. By combining biological and social data, scientists are opening up new fields of inquiry and are able for the first time to address many new questions and connections. But including biospecimens in social surveys also adds a great deal of complexity and cost to the investigator's task. Along with the usual concerns about informed consent, privacy issues, and the best ways to collect, store, and share data, researchers now face a variety of issues that are much less familiar or that appear in a new light. In particular, collecting and storing human biological materials for use in social science research raises additional legal, ethical, and social issues, as well as practical issues related to the storage, retrieval, and sharing of data. For example, acquiring biological data and linking them to social science databases requires a more complex informed consent process, the development of a biorepository, the establishment of data sharing policies, and the creation of a process for deciding how the data are going to be shared and used for secondary analysis-all of which add cost to a survey and require additional time and attention from the investigators. These issues also are likely to be unfamiliar to social scientists who have not worked with biological specimens in the past. Adding to the attraction of collecting biospecimens but also to the complexity of sharing and protecting the data is the fact that this is an era of incredibly rapid gains in our understanding of complex biological and physiological phenomena. Thus the tradeoffs between the risks and opportunities of expanding access to research data are constantly changing. Conducting Biosocial Surveys offers findings and recommendations concerning the best approaches to the collection, storage, use, and sharing of biospecimens gathered in social science surveys and the digital representations of biological data derived therefrom. It is aimed at researchers interested in carrying out such surveys, their institutions, and their funding agencies.

Regulatory standards are already on the books at the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address health risks posed by inhaling tiny particles from smoke, vehicle exhaust, and other sources. At the same time, Congress and EPA have initiated a multimillion dollar research effort to better understand the sources of these airborne particles, the levels of exposure to people, and the ways that these particles cause damage. To provide independent guidance to the EPA, Congress asked the National Research Council to study the relevant issues. The result is a series of four reports on the particulate-matter research program. The first two books offered a conceptual framework for a national research program, identified the 10 most critical research needs, and described the recommended timing and estimated costs of such research. This, the third volume, begins the task of assessing the progress made in implementing the research program. The National Research Council ultimately concludes that the ongoing program is appropriately addressing many of the key uncertainties. However, it also identifies a number of critical specific subjects that should be given greater attention. Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter focuses on the most current and planned research projects with an eye toward the fourth and final report, which will contain an updated assessment.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) disposes of plutonium-contaminated debris from its 27 nuclear weapons facilities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), an underground repository in Carlsbad, New Mexico. After four years of operational experience, DOE has opportunities to make changes to the costly and time-consuming process of "characterizing" the waste to confirm that it is appropriate for shipment to and disposal at WIPP.  The report says that in order to make such changes, DOE should conduct and publish a systematic and quantitative assessment to show that the proposed changes would not affect the protection of workers, the public, or the environment.

This report assesses whether the Smithsonian Institution should continue to receive direct federal appropriations for its scientific research programs or if this funding should be transferred to a peer-reviewed program open to all researchers in another agency. The report concludes that the National Museum of Natural History, the National Zoological Park, and the Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education in Suitland should remain exempt from having to compete for federal research dollars because they make unique contributions to the scientific and museum communities. Three other Smithsonian research programs should continue to receive federal funding since they are performing science of the highest quality and already compete for much of their government research money.

Advanced Technology for Human Support in Space was written in response to a request from NASA's Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA) to evaluate its Advanced Human Support Technology Program. This report reviews the four major areas of the program: advanced life support (ALS), environmental monitoring and control (EMC), extravehicular activities (EVA), and space human factors (SHF). The focus of this program is on long-term technology development applicable to future human long-duration space missions, such as for a hypothetical new mission to the Moon or Mars.

Peer review is an essential component of engineering practice and other scientific and technical undertakings. Peer reviews are conducted to ensure that activities are technically adequate, competently performed, and properly documented; to validate assumptions, calculations, and extrapolations; and to assess alternative interpretations, methodologies, acceptance criteria, and other aspects of the work products and the documentation that support them. Effective peer reviews are conducted in an environment of mutual respect, recognizing the contributions of all participants. Their primary objective is to help the project team achieve its goals. Reviews also contribute to quality assurance, risk management, and overall improvement of the management process. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts different types of peer reviews at the different stages of a project, including reviews to assess risks and other factors related to design, safety, cost estimates, value engineering, and project management. Independent project reviews (IPRs) are conducted by federal staff not directly affiliated with the project or program and management and operations (M&O) contractors. External independent reviews (EIRs) are overseen by the Office of Engineering and Construction Management and conducted by contractors external to the department. EIRs are the primary focus of this report. However, the committee found that, in many cases, IPRs are explicitly used as preparation for or as preliminary reviews prior to EIRs. Thus, because IPRs are integral to the review process in DOE, they are also discussed because they might have an effect on EIRs. In October 2000, DOE issued Order 413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets (DOE, 2000). The order established a series of five critical decisions (CDs), or major milestones, that require senior management review and approval to ensure that a project satisfies applicable mission, design, security, and safety requirements: approve mission need, approve alternative selection and cost range, approve performance baseline, approve start of construction, and approve start of operations or project closeout. Assessment of the Results of External Independent Reviews for U. S. Department of Energy Projects summarizes the results.