Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science?

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper identifies three distinct narratives concerning scientific misconduct: a narrative of “individual impurity” promoted by those wishing to see science self-regulated; a narrative of “institutional impropriety” promoted by those seeking greater external control of science; and a narrative of “structural crisis” among those critiquing the entire process of research itself. The paper begins by assessing contemporary definitions and estimates of scientific misconduct. It emphasizes disagreements over such definitions and estimates as a way to tease out tension and controversy over competing visions of scientific research. It concludes by noting that each narrative suggests a different approach for resolving misconduct, and that the difference inherent in these views may help explain much of the discord concerning unethical behavior in the scientific community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, J., & Sheppard, J. (1999). Complacent and conflicting scientific expertise in British and American drug regulation: clinical risk assessment of triazolam. Social Studies of Science, 29(6), 803–843. doi:10.1177/030631299029006001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, J. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, Charles Allen (2004). The cure for deadly patent practices: preventing technology suppression and patent shelving in the life sciences. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 14, 396–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2006). Science crime: the Korean cloning scandal and the role of ethics. Science & Public Policy, 33(8), 601–612. doi:10.3152/147154306781778650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgstock, M. (1982). A sociological approach to fraud in science. Journal of Sociology (Melbourne, Vic.), 18(3), 364–384. doi:10.1177/144078338201800305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broad, W.J. (1980). Would-be academician pirates papers. Science, 208, 1438–1440. doi:10.1126/science.208.4451.1438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Broad, W.J. (1981). Fraud and the structure of science. Science, 212(4491), 137–141. doi:10.1126/science.7209527.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Siegel, E. (2005). Academic medical centers and medical research: the challenges ahead. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(11), 1367–1372. doi:10.1001/jama.294.11.1367.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eisen, A., & Berry, R. (2002). The absent professor: why we don’t teach research ethics and what to do about it. The American Journal of Bioethics, 4(2), 38–49. doi:10.1162/152651602320957556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farthing, M. (2000). Research misconduct: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. British Journal of Surgery, 87, 1605–1609. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01692.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P.K. (1965). Against method. London: New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R.A. (1936). Has Mendel’s work been rediscovered? Annals of Science, 1, 115–137. doi:10.1080/00033793600200111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. (2000). Scientific societies as sentinels of responsible research conduct. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 224(4), 216–219. doi:10.1111/jel.1525-1373.2000.22424.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbelman, M., & Gelman, S.R. (2005). Scientific misconduct in social welfare research: preventative lessons from other fields. Social Work Education, 24(3), 275–295. doi:10.1080/02615470500050461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. (2003). Research fraud: a sui generic problem demands a sui generic solution (plus a little due process). Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 20, 47–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, E.J. (1990). Science as a vocation in the 1990s: the changing organizational culture of academic science. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(3), 241–279. doi:10.2307/1982130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, B. (2005). Essential tensions: identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 787–826. doi:10.1177/0306312705056045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, E. (1994). Science misconduct and due process: a case of process due. The Hastings Law Journal, 45, 309–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1996). Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 29, 397–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, J. (1999). Policing of science: a misconduct definition that finally sticks? Science, 286(5439), 391. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.391a.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, C.A., & Budd, J.M. (1992). The persistence of fraud in the literature: the Darsee Case. Journal of the American Society for Information Science American Society for Information Science, 43(7), 488–493. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199208)43:7<488::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. (2005). The funding effect in science and its implications for the judiciary. Journal of Law and Policy, 13, 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma, S.M. (1992). Criminal liability for misconduct in scientific research. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. University of Michigan. Law School, 25, 357–401.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lefor, A.T. (2005). Scientific misconduct and unethical experimentation: historic parallels and moral implications. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, California), 21, 881. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2004.10.011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manwell, C., & Baker, A. (1981). Honesty in science: a partial test of a sociobiological model of the social structure of science. Search. Science, Technology & Society, 12(6), 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (2000). Scientific misconduct: how prevalent is fraud? That’s a million dollar question. Science, 290(5497), 1662–1663. doi:10.1126/science.290.5497.1662.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. (1992). Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus, 10(1), 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B., et al. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 453, 737–738. doi:10.1038/435737a.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (1989). On being a scientist. Committee on the Conduct of Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (2004). Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, R. (1977). The crime of Claudius Ptolemy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. (2000). Transgressive competence: the narrative of expertise. European Journal of Social Theory, 3(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • ORI. 2005. 42 CFR Part 93. Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct.

  • Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559–589. doi:10.1086/230316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redman, B., & Caplan, A. (2005). Off with their heads: the need to criminalize some forms of scientific misconduct. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33, 344–361. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2005.tb00498.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. (1998). The ethics of science: an introduction. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. (2003). From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10, 123–135. doi:10.1080/08989620300508.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. (2007). The price of truth: how money affects the norms of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S.M. (2004). ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992–2002. Clinical Trials, 1, 509–516. doi:10.1191/1740774504cn048oa.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, K.M., & Levine, L. (2004). Better, faster cheaper—later: what happens when technologies are suppressed. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 11, 23–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo, A.E., & Resnik, David B. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2005). Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(5), W1–7. doi:10.1080/15265160500313242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, W., & Michaels, D. (2004). Equal treatment for regulatory science: extending the controls governing the quality of public research to private research. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 30, 119–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, D. (1979). Fraud in science. Social Science Quarterly, 59(4), 638–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westfall, R.S. (1994). The life of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1970). Some pathologies of the scientific life. Nature, 227, 996–997. doi:10.1038/227996a0.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 469C Bukit Timah Road, Singapore, 259772, Singapore

    Benjamin K. Sovacool

Authors
  1. Benjamin K. Sovacool
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin K. Sovacool.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sovacool, B.K. Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science?. Bioethical Inquiry 5, 271–282 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9113-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9113-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation