Abstract
There is no consensus over the proper definition of ‘scientific misconduct.’ There are differences in opinion not only between countries but also between research institutions in the same country. This is unfortunate. Without a widely accepted definition it is difficult for scientists to adjust to new research milieux. This might hamper scientific innovation and make cooperation difficult. Furthermore, due to the potentially damaging consequences it is important to combat misconduct. But how frequent is it and what measures are efficient? Without an appropriate definition there are no interesting answers to these questions. In order to achieve a high degree of consensus and to foster research integrity, the international dialogue over the proper definition of ‘scientific misconduct’ must be on going. Yet, the scientific community should not end up with the definition suggested by the Swedish Research Council. The definition the council advocates does not satisfy the ordinary language condition. That is, the definition is not consistent with how ‘scientific misconduct’ is used by scientists. I will show that this is due to the fact that it refers to false results. I generalise this and argue that no adequate definition of ‘scientific misconduct’ makes such a reference.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
According to the higher education act it is the vice-chancellor who determines the sanctions for scientific misconduct. The sanctions can range from warnings to wage deductions to terminations of employment. Scientific misconduct is, in Sweden, not indictable.
This is also one of the reasons why there is no reliable set of data on the frequency of scientific misconduct in Sweden.
See Chalmers (1999, p. 95) for a reconstruction of that argument.
References
Boghossian, P. A., & Velleman, J. D. (1989). Colour as a secondary quality. Mind, 98, 81–103.
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science?. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Churchland, P. (1981). Eliminative materialism and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 67–90.
Churchland, P. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind/brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dorr, C., & Rosen, G. (2002). Composition as a fiction. In R. Gale (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to metaphysics (pp. 151–174). Oxford: Blackwell.
Fanelli, D. (2011). The black, the white and the grey areas: Towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct. In T. Mayer & N. Stencke (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 79–90). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Field, H. (1980). Science without numbers: A defence of nominalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Forsman, B. (2007). Begrepp om forskningsfusk. Rapport till Vetenskapsrådet.
Herndron, T., Ash, M., & Pollin, R. (2013). Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth?. A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Political Economy Research Institute. Amherst: University of Amherst.
Irons, J. & Bivens, J. (2010). Government Debt and Economic Growth. Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper # 271.
Joyce, R. (2001). The myth of morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krugman, P. (2010). Reinhart and rogoff are confusing me. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/reinhart-and-rogoff-are-confusing-me/?_r=0. Accessed November 6, 2013.
Krugman, P. (2013). Reinhart and Rogoff are not happy. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/reinhart-and-rogoff-are-not-happy/. Accessed November 6, 2013.
Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. London: Routledge.
Mackie, J. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
National Academy of Sciences. (2011). On being a scientist. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newton-Smith, W. (1981). The rationality of science. London: Routledge.
Reinhart, C., & Rogoff, K. (2010). Growth in a time of debt. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 100, 573–578.
Reinhart, C. & Rogoff, K (2013a). Responding to our critics. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opinion/reinhart-and-rogoff-responding-to-our-critics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed November 6, 2013.
Reinhart, C. & Rogoff, K (2013b). Letter to Paul Krugman. http://www.carmenreinhart.com/letter-to-pk/. Accessed November 6, 2013.
Resnik, B. D. (2003). From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10, 123–135.
Resnik, B. D., & Stewart, S. N. (2012). Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Accountability in Research, 19, 56–63.
Salwén, H. (forthcoming 2014). Dålig moral eller dålig vetenskap eller varken det ena eller det andra? Historisk Tidskrift.
SRC (2011a). Good Research Practice. Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie 3, 2011.
SRC (2011b). God forskningssed. Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie 1, 2011.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Liisa Gellerstedt, Mikael Janvid, two anonymous referees and the editor of this journal for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salwén, H. The Swedish Research Council’s Definition of ‘Scientific Misconduct’: A Critique. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 115–126 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9523-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9523-2