Participants, observers say the case highlighted a need to overhaul the mechanism for dealing with charges of scientific misconduct. post 
The conclusion of the decade-long scientific misconduct case against Thereza Imanishi-Kari-she was exonerated in a June 21, 1996, decision of an appeals panel of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-would appear to be a clear-cut victory for the Tufts University immunologist. Certainly it has been greeted that way by Imanishi-Kari and the other coauthors of a disputed Cell paper (D. Weaver et al., Cell, 45:247-59, 1986), including Nobelist David Baltimore of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
At Representative Dingell's behest, the United States Secret Service began analyzing data notebooks of Imanishi-Kari and others. When the Secret Service turned up irregularities in the notebooks, the newly established OSI reopened NIH's investigation. OSI evolved into ORI in 1992 and became part of HHS headquarters in response to dissatisfaction with NIH's handling of misconduct investigations. ORI completed its investigation in 1994, charging Imanishi-Kari with 19 counts of scientific misconduct. She appealed this finding.
.
There was a time I flew regularly cross-country and found myself seated alongside someone who had once been a scientific supervisor of Imanishi-Kari. He noted he was surprised to see anyone reading Science in first class, the lair of the traveling salesmen.
I was familiar with the case and the science involved. A fascinating conversation upon the distinctions between notebooks, publications and legal entanglements ensued.
See Professional Learning Journal for our dip into these distinctions.
See Science vs Science News where I had learned enough to be a good conversation partner.