Scientific Misconduct: Three Forms that Directly Harm Others as the Modus Operandi of Mill’s Tyranny of the Prevailing Opinion
Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (1):41-54 (2014)
AbstractScientific misconduct is usually assumed to be self-serving. This paper, however, proposes to distinguish between two types of scientific misconduct: ‘type one scientific misconduct’ is self-serving and leads to falsely positive conclusions about one’s own work, while ‘type two scientific misconduct’ is other-harming and leads to falsely negative conclusions about someone else’s work. The focus is then on the latter type, and three known issues are identified as specific forms of such scientific misconduct: biased quality assessment, smear, and officially condoning scientific misconduct. These concern the improper ways how challenges of the prevailing opinion are thwarted in the modern world. The central issue is pseudoskepticism: uttering negative conclusions about someone else’s work that are downright false. It is argued that this may be an emotional response, rather than a calculated strategic action. Recommendations for educative and punitive measures are given to prevent and to deal with these three forms of scientific misconduct
Similar books and articles
The Swedish Research Council’s Definition of ‘Scientific Misconduct’: A Critique.Håkan Salwén - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):115-126.
Misconduct in science and the German law.Stefanic Stegemann-Bochl - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):57-62.
Scientific misconduct: Present problems and future trends.Barbara Mishkin - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Using Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct.Benjamin K. Sovacool - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (5):W1-W7.
Effectiveness of research guidelines in prevention of scientific misconduct.Eleanor G. Shore - 1995 - Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):383-387.
The american experience: Lessons learned. [REVIEW]Lawrence J. Rhoades - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):95-107.
Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct Among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria.Patrick Okonta & Theresa Rossouw - 2013 - Developing World Bioethics 13 (3):149-157.
Commentary on "scientific misconduct: Present problems and future trends" (b. mishkin).Debra M. Parrish - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):299-301.
Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists.James J. Dooley & Helen M. Kerch - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):109-121.
How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards.C. K. Gunsalus - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51-64.
How Frequently do Allegations of Scientific Misconduct Occur in Ecology and Evolution, and What Happens Afterwards?Gregorio Moreno-Rueda - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):93-96.
The history and future of the office of research integrity: Scientific misconduct and beyond. [REVIEW]Chris B. Pascal - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):183-198.
Commentary on “changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. government’s attempts to define research misconduct”. [REVIEW]Margaret Dale - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):158-160.
Changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. government’s attempt to define research misconduct.David H. Guston - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):137-154.
Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? [REVIEW]Benjamin K. Sovacool - 2008 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4):271-282.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements.Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, Istvan S. Szilagyi & Andreas Sandner-Kiesling - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1063-1072.
References found in this work
Bayes or Bust?: A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory.John Earman - 1992 - Bradford.
Social Theory and Social Structure.Lawrence Haworth - 1961 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11 (44):345-346.
Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics: From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery.Karl Raimund Popper - 1982 - Routledge.