Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? [Book Review]
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4):271-282 (2008)
AbstractThis 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.
Similar books and articles
Responding to allegations of scientific misconduct: The procedure at the French national medical and health research institute.Jean-Philippe Breittmayer, Martine Bungener, Hugues De The, Evelyne Eschwege, Michel Fougereau, Gilles Guedj, Claude Kordon, Olivier Philippe, Maric-Catherine Postel-Vinay & Laurence Schaffar-Esterle - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):41-48.
Effectiveness of research guidelines in prevention of scientific misconduct.Eleanor G. Shore - 1995 - Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):383-387.
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.
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.
Accountability and responsibility in research.Patricia K. Woolf - 1991 - Journal of Business Ethics 10 (8):595 - 600.
The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in biosciences.Péter Kakuk - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):545-562.
Research misconduct among clinical trial staff.Barbara K. Redman, Thomas N. Templin & Jon F. Merz - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):481-489.
Using Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct.Benjamin K. Sovacool - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (5):W1-W7.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Relationships Between the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) and Self-Reported Research Practices.A. Lauren Crain, Brian C. Martinson & Carol R. Thrush - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):835-850.
Researchers’ Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study.Tamarinde Haven, H. Roeline Pasman, Guy Widdershoven, Lex Bouter & Joeri Tijdink - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (6):3017-3036.
A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases.Péter Kakuk, Soren Holm, János Kristóf Bodnár, Mohammad Hosseini, Jonathan Lewis, Bert Gordijn & Anna Catharina Vieira Armond - 2021 - BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1):1-14.
Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.Frans Oort, Lex Bouter, Brian Martinson, Joeri Tijdink & Tamarinde Haven - 2021 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 6 (1).
References found in this work
The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.Robert King Merton - 1973 - University of Chicago Press.
Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge.Karin Knorr-Cetina - 1999 - Harvard University Press.