Literature DB >> 14577424

From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct.

David B Resnik1.   

Abstract

This essay proposes a new definition of scientific "misconduct," which is broader than the definition recently adopted by the U.S. government. According to the proposed definition, misconduct is a serious and intentional violation of accepted scientific practices, commonsense ethical norms, or research regulations in proposing, designing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. Punishable misconduct includes fabrication of data or experiments, falsification of data, plagiarism, or interference with a misconduct investigation. Misconduct does not include honest errors, differences of opinion, or ethically questionable research practices.

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Legal Approach; National Academy of Sciences

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14577424     DOI: 10.1080/08989620300508

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   2.622


  16 in total

1.  Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement.

Authors:  David B Resnik; C Neal Stewart
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 2.  Research Misconduct: The Peril of Publish or Perish.

Authors:  Samir Al-Adawi; Badreldin H Ali; Ibrahim Al-Zakwani
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2016-01

Review 3.  A qualitative approach to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training development: identification of metacognitive strategies.

Authors:  Vykinta Kligyte; Richard T Marcy; Sydney T Sevier; Elaine S Godfrey; Michael D Mumford
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Application of a sensemaking approach to ethics training in the physical sciences and engineering.

Authors:  Vykinta Kligyte; Richard T Marcy; Ethan P Waples; Sydney T Sevier; Elaine S Godfrey; Michael D Mumford; Dean F Hougen
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2007-12-12       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Institutional Responsibility and the Flawed Genomic Biomarkers at Duke University: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency and Accountability.

Authors:  David L DeMets; Thomas R Fleming; Gail Geller; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity.

Authors:  Sarah R Davies
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  The Swedish Research Council's definition of 'scientific misconduct': a critique.

Authors:  Håkan Salwén
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  Research integrity in China: problems and prospects.

Authors:  Weiqin Zeng; David Resnik
Journal:  Dev World Bioeth       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.294

9.  A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences.

Authors:  Alison L Antes; Stephen T Murphy; Ethan P Waples; Michael D Mumford; Ryan P Brown; Shane Connelly; Lynn D Devenport
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2009-09-01

10.  Exposure to Unethical Career Events: Effects on Decision-Making, Climate, and Socialization.

Authors:  Michael D Mumford; Ethan P Waples; Alison L Antes; Stephen T Murphy; Shane Connelly; Ryan P Brown; Lynn D Devenport
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2009-09-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.