Literature DB >> 16909155

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach.

Luca Consoli1.   

Abstract

The Schön misconduct case has been widely publicized in the media and has sparked intense discussions within and outside the scientific community about general issues of science ethics. This paper analyses the Report of the official Committee charged with the investigation in order to show that what at first seems to be a quite uncontroversial case, turns out to be an accumulation of many interesting and non-trivial questions (of both ethical and philosophical interest). In particular, the paper intends to show that daily scientific practices are structurally permeated by chronic problems; this has serious consequences for how practicing scientists assess their work in general, and scientific misconduct in particular. A philosophical approach is proposed that sees scientific method and scientific ethics as inextricably interwoven. Furthermore, the paper intends to show that the definition of co-authorship that the members of the Committee use, although perhaps clear in theory, proves highly problematic in practice and raises more questions that it answers. A final plea is made for a more self-reflecting attitude of scientists as far as the moral and methodological profile of science is concerned as a key element for improving not only their scientific achievements, but also their assessment of problematic cases.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16909155     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  2 in total

1.  Bell Labs. Winning streak brought awe, and then doubt.

Authors:  Robert F Service
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-07-05       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Misconduct finding at Bell Labs shakes physics community.

Authors:  Geoff Brumfiel
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-10-03       Impact factor: 49.962

  2 in total
  8 in total

1.  When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media.

Authors:  Ilaria Ampollini; Massimiano Bucchi
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Scientific Ethics: A New Approach.

Authors:  Marcello Menapace
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Scientific misconduct: three forms that directly harm others as the modus operandi of Mill's tyranny of the prevailing opinion.

Authors:  Marcoen J T F Cabbolet
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science.

Authors:  Alexander M Petersen; Ioannis Pavlidis; Ioanna Semendeferi
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of 'Scientific Integrity'.

Authors:  S P J M Horbach; W Halffman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Making researchers responsible: attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct.

Authors:  Govert Valkenburg; Guus Dix; Joeri Tijdink; Sarah de Rijcke
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Addressing research integrity challenges: from penalising individual perpetrators to fostering research ecosystem quality care.

Authors:  Hub Zwart; Ruud Ter Meulen
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2019-06-10

8.  Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.

Authors:  Govert Valkenburg; Guus Dix; Joeri Tijdink; Sarah de Rijcke
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 3.525

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.