As departments across the University make cuts to their annual budgets to offset a $200 million budget shortfall, Weill Cornell Medical College is reaching deep into its pockets to scrounge more than $2.6 million — a sum that the University truly does not have to spare.

This exorbitant payment will be handed over to the U.S. government in order to resolve charges brought against the medical college for filing fraudulent claims in order to secure millions of federal research money from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, this incident was not an isolated one for Cornell. The University has spent millions in the past to cover up similar charges of fraud surrounding research funding.

Aside from the cost, however, the incident discredits the college’s research and degrades the University’s reputation as a whole. We are worried that a persistent lack of truthfulness in disclosure is putting our future at stake, tarnishing the degrees to which we’ve dedicated our academic careers. Cornell must jump at this most recent incident as an opportunity to restructure its means of ensuring full disclosure and preventing conflicts of interest.

A few weeks ago before news of the settlement was released, the Board of Trustees addressed this very issue. President Skorton acknowledged that the University has run into problems with conflicts of interest, citing an incident at Weill that was reported last March regarding lung cancer research that had been funded by a tobacco company.

The University admits that it fails to require full disclosure from its researchers, relying on a decentralized approach that asks researchers themselves to evaluate their commitments and potential conflicts. Cornell must take a more proactive approach, requiring regular audits of researchers and disclosure of all active research projects. Without such a system in place, the University will continue to put its reputation on the line, tainting the innovative work that comes from the best and brightest of Cornellians.

Sure, President Obama may seek to commit America to a revitalized era of sound science. And others on Capitol Hill may be working to increase federal oversight of disclosure of research funding. But the fact is that any federal action taken will most likely resemble the decentralized approach that has let researchers at Cornell and other major research institutions cut corners in the past.

Thus, Cornell should take this opportunity to set a precedent by restructuring methods of monitoring faculty research. Faculty should welcome a high level of scrutiny from the University, rather than face charges of fraud from the federal government.