<< Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Bibliography (page 5 of 5) Rhoades, L. (2004). New Insitutional Rsearch Misconduct Activity 1992-2001. O. o. R. Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services. Rhoades, L. (2004). ORI Closed Investigation into Misconduct Allegations Involving Research Supperted by the Public Hleath Service 1994-2003. O. of. R. Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services. Stein, R. (2005). Researcher Fabricated Data in Studies on Women. Washington Post. March 18, 2005       This famous case of fabrication shocked the establishment because the perpetrator was well known and slated to receive an important award. He had misused about $11 million and had published fraudulent data. He had to pay back some money and be barred from NIH research support for life. Steneck, N. (1999). "Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: what has and has not been accomplished?" Sci Eng Ethics 5(2): 161-76.       He details the state of affairs before attention began to be directed at research misconduct, the formation of the ORI and the changing attitudes of investigators and institutions until the time of publication. He deals with confronting misconduct, promoting integrity and ensuring integrity. He points out that ensuring integrity has not been addressed. In the context of today's situation, perhaps we are now finally addressing the latter. I think the lawyers made us do it. Swazey, J. P., M. S. Anderson, et al. (1993). "Ethical Problems in Academic Research: A survey of doctoral candidates and faculty raises important questions about the ethical environment of graduate education and research." American Scientist 81: 542-553.       This study has become a classic because it clearly demonstrated the extent of questionable behavior in both faculty and trainees in a variety of fields of science. It is worthwhile reading - and don't think that your field is any more honorable. Taubes, G. (1993). "Misconduct: Views from the Trenches." Science 261: 1108-11.       This news item describes effective misconduct processes at UCSF, UCSD, Harvard and Univ. of Illinois as well as interviewing some of the responsible persons. The process at UCSF is described in some detail. Trounson, R. O. et al (2003). Researchers Violated Rules, UCLA Says. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. April 16, 2003.       This is a tricky one. The investigator arranged to work on data and blood samples obtained from an unapproved study in China without getting permission from his own institution's IRB. He was sanctioned even though he did not participate in the original study. Woodward, J. and D. Goodstein (1996). "Conduct, Misconduct, and the Structure of Science." American Scientist 84(5): 479-91.       This analysis is concerned with the true structure of science as it differs from the homilies that pretend to describe this most complicated of human endeavors. The authors take apart a series of ethical principles used to characterize science and try to demonstrate that, for misconduct the only important thing is whether the scientific record was damaged by falsification or fabrication, results that it takes expertise to detect. They propose that the definition of scientific misconduct be limited to those activities. Much of their view has been adopted, finally in the new definition although plagiarism was not purged as they suggested. Youngner, J. S. (1998). "The Scientific Misconduct Process: A Scientist's View From the Inside." JAMA 279(1): 62-64.       The author analyzes the activities of the Office of Research Integrity as an investigatory body and concludes that the requirement for confronting the purported perpetrator and allowing a defense was only met during the appeal process. The ORI was downgraded not long after this paper and the misconduct review now resides in the institutions and in the Inspector General's office of the Federal granting agencies. Investigations seem to be going much better at this point. Cho, M. K., G. McGee, et al. (2006). "RESEARCH CONDUCT: Lessons of the Stem Cell Scandal." Science 311(5761): 614-615.      This brief Policy Forum reflects on the reasons for the Hwang stem cell scandal. They reflect on the importance of trust in science. They indicate that scientific self-management works best in a questioning flat rather than a hierarchical laboratory environment and that widespread understanding of and buy-in regarding research ethics is required. It was not present in Kova. In my view, the Koreans were acting from a survivalist mentality in their effort to compete with America. in that mental mode, the only thing that counts is success. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5761/614 << Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Chapter 8 Quick Links Malfeasance and Misconduct Definitions Process Whistleblowing Litigation, the New Approach to Research Management The Importance of Trust Cases Bibliography Chapter 8 Download (PDF)