i suppose. i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions. accounting and best practices around it have been around for a long time.
this discussion is about ensuring scientific velocity by increasing the rigor required to declare success and add new knowledge to the commons.
unless there's large scale fraud going on, i honestly don't think bringing in additional auditors to look at books that are already professionally kept is going to benefit anyone other than said auditors.
> If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits.
these are all nonprofit institutions, some are government run, i'm pretty sure they're required to engage independent professional auditing firms just as a condition of their tax exempt status, let alone acceptance of federal grant dollars.
> i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions.
If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits.
this discussion is about ensuring scientific velocity by increasing the rigor required to declare success and add new knowledge to the commons.
unless there's large scale fraud going on, i honestly don't think bringing in additional auditors to look at books that are already professionally kept is going to benefit anyone other than said auditors.