- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards
Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51-64 (1998)
Abstract
Filing charges of scientific misconduct can be a risky and dangerous endeavor. This article presents rules of conduct to follow when considering whether to report perceived misconduct, and a set of step-by-step procedures for responsible whistleblowing that describe how to do so once the decision to report misconduct has been made. This advice is framed within the university setting, and may not apply fully in industrial settings.Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
Applications to the industrial sector: Commentary on “how to blow the whistle and still have a Career Afterwards”.Roger M. Boisjoly - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):71-74.
Applications to the industrial sector: Commentary on “how to blow the whistle and still have a Career Afterwards” (C.K. Gunsalus). [REVIEW]Roger Biosjoly - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):71-74.
Can you whistle while you work?: Commentary on “how to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards”.Howard Gadlin - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):65-69.
To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors.Tristan McIntosh, Cory Higgs, Megan Turner, Paul Partlow, Logan Steele, Alexandra E. MacDougall, Shane Connelly & Michael D. Mumford - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):171-210.
Falsification of Credentials in the Research Setting; Scientific Misconduct?Debra M. Parrish - 1996 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 24 (3):260-266.
What’s in it for Me? An Examination of Accounting Students’ Likelihood to Report Faculty Misconduct.Joanne C. Jones, Gary Spraakman & Cristóbal Sánchez-Rodríguez - 2014 - Journal of Business Ethics 123 (4):645-667.
Why fallout from whistleblowing is hard to avoid: Commentary on “The fallout: What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?”.Joan E. Sieber - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):255-260.
Whistleblowing in Biomedical Research Policies and Procedures for Responding to Reports of Misconduct : Proceedings of a Workshop, September 21-22, 1981.inc United States, Medicine in the Public Interest & Aaas Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility - 1981 - The Commission for Sale by the Supt. Of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
131 (#147,095)
6 months
19 (#197,114)
2009-01-28
Downloads
131 (#147,095)
6 months
19 (#197,114)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Costs and Labour of Whistleblowing: Bodily Vulnerability and Post-disclosure Survival.Kate Kenny & Marianna Fotaki - 2021 - Journal of Business Ethics 182 (2):341-364.
Development of Role-Play Scenarios for Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research.Bradley J. Brummel, C. K. Gunsalus, Kerri L. Anderson & Michael C. Loui - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (3):573-589.
Correcting the Scholarly Record in the Aftermath of Plagiarism: A Snapshot of Current‐Day Publishing Practices in Philosophy.M. V. Dougherty - 2017 - Metaphilosophy 48 (3):258-283.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6b65f85844-t9k8j uwo