In the fall of 1963 my four-year-old daughter Suzie, who has since graduated from MIT, predicted my future. A neighbor had inquired over the back fence" What does your daddy do?" Suzie replied," He used to be a doctor but he doesn't work any more." We had moved to Bethesda from Boston a few months earlier, and my job had changed from Resident in Internal Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital to Re-search Associate in the Laboratory of Biochemistry at the National Heart Institute. Since that time I have not" worked," rather I have enjoyed the great fortune of doing what I please-medical research. I feel very fortunate to have been allowed to pursueproblems on my own terms and am extremely grateful for our sys-tem of support for medical investigation. It is therefore with regret that today I discuss a vexing problem, that of fraud in medical research. I am revolted by anyone who fabricates results in the laboratory. I cannot explain such an individual nor can I justify his actions in any way. However, in approaching the question of fraud in medical research, I will attempt to put my personal revulsion aside. It is easy to overreact and it concerns me that we in the medical research com-munity may do just that, even though I can understand why. It is hard to be dispassionate about something that strikes at the heart of our lives. However, by over-reacting we may invite the formation of regulatory groups that will impede, rather than facilitate honest medical research.

In the past few years, there have been a half-dozen scandals involving outright fabrication of research data. These episodes have received wide press cover-age, both because of intrinsic prurient interestin such news and because cheating in the use of a method where the goal is the discovery of truth is so aberrant. It's like trying to construct a building using dyna-mite-it does not work.