The only ethical principle which has made science possible is that the truth shall be told all the time. If we do not penalize false statements made in error, we open up the way, donít you see, for false statements by intention. And of course, a false statement of fact, made deliberately, is the most serious crime a scientist can commit. Ė C.P. Snow
Chapter 5: The Impossible Dream

     Kenn Steele, a senior scientist in Jeff's specialty subfield, had served as a peer reviewer for Jeff's manuscript submitted to Science. Recognizing the innovative proposition and pioneering research Jeff had described, Kenn quickly turned around a strong positive review of Jeff's work to the editor. A month later, Kenn read the manuscript again as he prepared to cite Jeff's exciting new research direction and ideas in a major grant proposal that Kenn would submit to NSF.

     As Kenn re-read the manuscript, he was baffled by what appeared to be inconsistencies in data represented by some of the graphs, tables, and illustrations that Jeff included. Were these results plausible? If there were errors, were they intentional? How did these problems get past Kenn in his initial review?

     Kenn e-mailed Connie, Jeff's department chair. Kenn felt comfortable confiding in Connie, a former colleague at The University of Washington, about his questions and concerns. Would she talk to Jeff about this problem with his data and its reporting?

Research Ethics
Chapter 5: The Impossible Dream
Discussion and Reflection Questions
Integration Questions
References and Resources

This chapter addresses research misconduct. Upon completion of this chapter, we hope that you can define and identify research misconduct, including fabricating and falsifying data, plagiarism, and abuses of confidentiality. We also hope you learn about institutional and federal consequences for research conduct.

  << Previous Page Chapter Page 2 of 3 Next Page >>