Literature DB >> 24935246

No One Likes a Snitch.

Barbara Redman1, Arthur Caplan.   

Abstract

Whistleblowers remain essential as complainants in allegations of research misconduct. Frequently internal to the research team, they are poorly protected from acts of retribution, which may deter the reporting of misconduct. In order to perform their important role, whistleblowers must be treated fairly. Draft regulations for whistleblower protection were published for public comment almost a decade ago but never issued (Dahlberg 2013). In the face of the growing challenge of research fraud, we suggest vigorous steps, to include: organizational responsibility to certify the accuracy of research including audit, required whistleblower action in the face of imminent or grave harm to subjects, strengthened legal protections against retaliation including prompt enactment of Federal whistleblower protections and consideration of criminalizing the most egregious cases of research misconduct.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24935246     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-014-9570-8

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


  14 in total

1.  Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct.

Authors:  Benjamin K Sovacool
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 2.  Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author.

Authors:  Richard Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-07-30

3.  The Poehlman case: running away from the truth.

Authors:  John E Dahlberg; Christian C Mahler
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  An unwelcome discovery. Walter DeNino was a young lab technician who analyzed data for his mentor, Eric Poehlman. What he found was that Poehlman was not the scientist he appeared to be.

Authors:  Jeneen Interlandi
Journal:  N Y Times Mag       Date:  2006-10-22

5.  Accountability in research: policies and quality assurance. Guest editorial.

Authors:  David E Wright
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  Repairing research integrity.

Authors:  Sandra L Titus; James A Wells; Lawrence J Rhoades
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-06-19       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Hostile reception to US misconduct report.

Authors:  M Wadman
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1996-06-20       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Perspective: Innocence and due diligence: managing unfounded allegations of scientific misconduct.

Authors:  James R Goldenring
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 6.893

9.  A tale of two perspectives: regulation versus self-regulation. A financial reporting approach (from Sarbanes-Oxley) for research ethics.

Authors:  Vincent Richman; Alex Richman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 3.525

10.  Time to ensure that clinical trial appropriate results are actually published.

Authors:  Rafael Dal-Ré; Arthur L Caplan
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-01-11       Impact factor: 2.953

View more
  2 in total

1.  Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science.

Authors:  Justin T Pickett; Sean Patrick Roche
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing.

Authors:  Knut Jørgen Vie
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2020-08-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.