The entire guide can be found here as well. In 2010, this guide won an award for Innovation from the Health Improvement Institute for Excellence in Human Research Protection.
The Foreword is posted to give an idea of what is in the guide.
Foreword
Every once in awhile a product comes along that is destined to make a difference. This Guide is such a product. Informed by data generated through surveys and interviews involving more than 2,000 scientists, the Guide gives voice to those researchers willing, some with eagerness and others with relief, to share their stories publicly in their own words. There are stories from scientists who want to do the right thing, but are unsure how to go about it or concerned about negative consequences for them or their junior colleagues. There are accounts from researchers who took action, and are keen to share their successful strategies with others. On the flip side, there are those who hesitated and now lament not having guidance that might have altered the course of past events.
In response to these compelling stories, the Guide adopts a problem-solving approach that looks for ways to preempt wrongdoing in research, to create options for scientists faced with suspicions or evidence of irresponsible science, and to assist researchers in working through those options in a manner that reinforces the integrity of the science without risking career or friendships. The Guide pulls no punches. While it is intended to help researchers achieve a successful resolution of what are often very messy matters, it recognizes that this may not always be possible. It is this honest assessment that will appeal to scientists looking for fair-minded and useful guidance, not pious prescriptions that bear no resemblance to the real world.
Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the research reported in the Guide is that scientists included in the study proclaimed "overwhelming support for the concept of a researcher’s individual responsibility to intervene when suspecting wrongdoing, especially if it rises to the level of a ‘serious nature’ (94%)." Surely, there is no argument that reporting research wrongdoing and preserving the integrity of the research record will depend largely on the willingness of individuals to intervene. Recognition of one’s professional responsibility to act is a necessary step in that direction, but it is not enough. What is also needed is a good compass that points in the right direction, warns of hazardous terrain ahead, locates where support is available, and helps people assess and reason through their choices. Just as the compass greatly improved the safety and efficiency of travel dating back to the 11th century, so too will this Guide greatly help scientists navigate the challenges they encounter when taking the moral high ground.
Mark S. Frankel
Director, Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Dr. Frankel served as a consultant to the authors of the Guide.
