We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
The phenomenon of misconduct in scientific research illustrates how great can be the social damage of not knowing the incidence of a malady. Many urgings about such phenomenon have predicated views about the extent of institutional and governmental vigilance on observers' differing surmises about how frequently misconduct occurs. Such is the measurement error of extant data about incidence1 that one can venture little more than the deliberately imprecise conclusion that “misconduct is neither common nor rare.”
1. National Academy of Sciences, Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992, pp. 80–97.Google ScholarPubMedHackett, J. A social control perspective on scientific misconduct. Journal of Higher Education 1994;65:244–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Testimony of Howard Schachman before Commission on Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, at National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, November 7, 1994.
3. Popper, KR. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.Google Scholar
4. Oersted, HC. On the spirit and study of universal natural philosophy (1852) in The Soul of Nature, trans. Horner, L, Horner, JB. London, 1966, p. 450,Google Scholar quoted in Holton, G. Einstein, History, and Other Passions. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics, 1995, pp. 143–6, 152–3.Google Scholar
5. These manifestations of popular influence are mentioned in Brush, SG. Prediction and theory evaluation: the case of light bending. Science 1989;246:1124–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. 45 C.F.R. § 689.1(a) and 42 C.F.R. § 50.102.
7. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989), V, p. 702.Google Scholar
8. National Academy of Sciences, pp. 25–27.Google Scholar
9. 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2796–2797 (1993).
10. Briefs Amid Curiae of Nicolaas Bloembergen, Erminio Costa, Dudley Herschbach, Jerome Karle, Arthur Langer, Wassily Leontief, Richard S. Lindzen, William N. Lipscomb, Donald B. Louria, John B. Little, A. Alan Moghissi, Brooke T. Mossman, Robert Nolan, Arno A. Penzias, Frederick Seitz, A. Frederick Spilhaus, Dimitrios Trichopoulos, and Richard Wilson in Support of Respondent, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Supreme Court of the United States No. 92–102, p. 10, and of American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Academy of Sciences in Support of Respondent, p. 9 (Lexis-Nexis).
11. Hempel, CG. Empiricist criteria of cognitive significance (rev.). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
12. Birkhoff, GD. A mathematical approach to ethics. Collected Mathematical Papers, III. New York: American Mathematical Society, 1950, pp. 755–777.Google Scholar
13. Russell, B. The philosophy of logical atomism (1918). Reprinted in Marsh, RC, ed. Logic and Knowledge. London: G. Allen Unwin, 1956.Google Scholar
14. Hare, RM. Moral Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Kant, I. On a supposed right to lie from altruistic motives. Critique of Practical Reason and Other Writings in Moral Philosophy, trans. Beck, LW. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949, pp. 347–8.Google Scholar
16. An account of this is provided by Jonsen, AR, Toulmin, S. The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1988, pp. 203–213.Google Scholar
17. The case is discussed in Guenin, LM, Davis, BD. Scientific reasoning and due process. Science and Engineering Ethics 1996;2:47–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. The “misleading” standard appears in the most robust current version of misrepresentation, the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
19. American Historical Association. Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct. Washington, D. C., 1993.Google ScholarPubMed See also American Association of University Professors. Statement on Plagiarism. Washington, DC, 1989.Google ScholarPubMed
20. In re Dr. James Freisheim, Office of Research Integrity Case No. 92–07 (April, 1992).Google Scholar
21. Marshall, E. Suit alleges misuse of peer review. Science 1996;270:1912–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Guenin, L. The logical geography of concepts and shared responsibilities concerning research misconduct. Academic Medicine 1996;71:595–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Wheeler, DL. A bitter feud over authorship. The Chronicle of Higher Education 1995;06 2:A8.Google Scholar
