David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):109-121 (2000)
Scientific misconduct includes the fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) of concepts, data or ideas; some institutions in the United States have expanded this concept to include “other serious deviations (OSD) from accepted research practice.” It is the absence of this OSD clause that distinguishes scientific misconduct policies of the past from the “research misconduct” policies that should be the basis of future federal policy in this area. This paper introduces a standard for judging whether an action should be considered research misconduct as distinguished from scientific misconduct: by this standard, research misconduct must involve activities unique to the practice of science and must have the potential to negatively affect the scientific record. Although the number of cases of scientific misconduct is uncertain (only the NIH and the NSF keep formal records), the costs are high in terms of the integrity of the scientific record, diversions from research to investigate allegations, ruined careers of those eventually exonerated, and erosion of public confidence in science. Existing scientific misconduct policies vary from institution to institution and from government agency to government agency; some have highly developed guidelines that include OSD, others have no guidelines at all. One result has been that the federal False Claims Act has been used to pursue allegations of scientific misconduct. As a consequence, such allegations have been adjudicated in federal courts, rather than judged by scientific peers. The federal government is now establishing a first-ever research misconduct policy that would apply to all research funded by the federal government regardless of which agency funded the research or whether the research was carried out in a government, industrial or university laboratory. Physical scientists, who up to now have only infrequently been the subject of scientific misconduct allegations, must nonetheless become active in the debate over research misconduct policies and how they are implemented since they will now be explicitly covered by this new federal wide policy.
|Keywords||Scientific misconduct physical sciences and public policy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Benjamin K. Sovacool (2005). Using Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct. American Journal of Bioethics 5 (5):W1-W7.
David H. Guston (1999). Changing Explanatory Frameworks in the U.S. Government's Attempt to Define Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):137-154.
Jean-Philippe Breittmayer, Martine Bungener, Hugues De The, Evelyne Eschwege, Michel Fougereau, Gilles Guedj, Claude Kordon, Olivier Philippe, Maric-Catherine Postel-Vinay & Laurence Schaffar-Esterle (2000). Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):41-48.
Debra M. Parrish (2004). Scientific Misconduct and Findings Against Graduate and Medical Students. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3):483-491.
Michael C. Loui (2002). Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (4):529-539.
Imogen Evans (2000). The Medical Research Council's Approach to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):91-94.
Patricia K. Woolf (1991). Accountability and Responsibility in Research. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (8):595 - 600.
Eleanor G. Shore (1995). Effectiveness of Research Guidelines in Prevention of Scientific Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):383-387.
Arthur Bonito, Sandra Titus & David Wright (2012). Assessing the Preparedness of Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) to Appropriately Handle Possible Research Misconduct Cases. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):605-619.
Barbara Mishkin (1999). Scientific Misconduct: Present Problems and Future Trends. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #144,290 of 1,098,408 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #78,721 of 1,098,408 )
How can I increase my downloads?