Literature DB >> 16810336

Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research.

Raymond de Vries1, Melissa S Anderson, Brian C Martinson.   

Abstract

Those concerned with protecting the Integrity of science generally focus on the serious but rare infractions of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). While the violations of FFP are clear threats to the quality of scientific work and public trust in science, are they the behaviors that researchers themselves find most troubling? Noticing that scientists seldom are asked to report their perceptions of the behaviors that pose problems for the enterprise of science, we conducted six focus groups with researchers from major research universities. A total of 51 scientists participated in our focus-group discussions, which lasted from 1.5 to 2 hours each. We found that while researchers were aware of the problems of FFP, in their eyes misconduct generally is associated with more mundane, everyday problems in the work environment. These more common problems fall into four categories: the meaning of data, the rules of science, life with colleagues, and the pressures of production in science. Focus on the "normal misbehaviors" that are part of the ordinary life of researchers allows us to see the way the organization of science generates both compliance and deviance from ethical norms.

Entities:  

Year:  2006        PMID: 16810336      PMCID: PMC1483899          DOI: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  10 in total

1.  Wellcome Trust sets out fresh misconduct standards.

Authors:  E Klarreich
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-08-16       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Research ethics. Planned misconduct surveys meet stiff resistance.

Authors:  Constance Holden
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-11-22       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  A new approach to assessing ethical conduct in scientific work.

Authors:  Whitney Helton-Fauth; Blaine Gaddis; Ginamarie Scott; Michael Mumford; Lynn Devenport; Shane Connelly; Ryan Brown
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2003 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Implant program for heart device was a sales spur.

Authors:  Barry Meier
Journal:  N Y Times Web       Date:  2005-09-27

5.  The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey.

Authors:  Sanaa Al-Marzouki; Ian Roberts; Tom Marshall; Stephen Evans
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Scientists behaving badly.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; Melissa S Anderson; Raymond de Vries
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-06-09       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; Melissa S Anderson; A Lauren Crain; Raymond de Vries
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.742

8.  Stem cells. How young Korean researchers helped unearth a scandal ...

Authors:  Sei Chong; Dennis Normile
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-01-06       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Stem cells. ...and how the problems eluded peer reviewers and editors.

Authors:  Jennifer Couzin
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-01-06       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Scientific misconduct. Researcher faces prison for fraud in NIH grant applications and papers.

Authors:  Eli Kintisch
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-03-25       Impact factor: 47.728

  10 in total
  72 in total

Review 1.  Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors.

Authors:  Stephen L George
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; Melissa S Anderson; A Lauren Crain; Raymond de Vries
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. Institutional changes, rather than individual motivations, encourage misconduct.

Authors:  Martina Franzen; Simone Rödder; Peter Weingart
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Collective openness and other recommendations for the promotion of research integrity.

Authors:  Melissa S Anderson
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2007-11-27       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships.

Authors:  Melissa S Anderson; Emily A Ronning; Raymond De Vries; Brian C Martinson
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Effectiveness of a responsible conduct of research course: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Sean T Powell; Matthew A Allison; Michael W Kalichman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  The legacy of the Hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences.

Authors:  Péter Kakuk
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  What Explains Associations of Researchers' Nation of Origin and Scores on a Measure of Professional Decision-Making? Exploring Key Variables and Interpretation of Scores.

Authors:  Alison L Antes; Tammy English; Kari A Baldwin; James M DuBois
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 3.525

9.  Factors associated with research wrongdoing in Nigeria.

Authors:  Omokhoa A Adeleye; Clement A Adebamowo
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.742

10.  Research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity.

Authors:  Barbara Habermann; Marion Broome; Erica R Pryor; Kim Wagler Ziner
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.381

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.