Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: The scientific community’s responses to Whistleblowing

Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):3-6 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The papers in this issue are based on presentations by the authors at the 163nd National Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, Washington, 13–18 February 1997 in the session entitled Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: What the Scientific Community Can Do about Whistleblowing organized by Stephanie J. Bird and Diane Hoffman-Kim. The papers have been modified following double blind peer review

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,752

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
126 (#143,682)

6 months
4 (#778,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Misconduct in science: Controversy and progress.Stephanie J. Bird & Alicia K. Dustira - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):131-136.

Add more citations

References found in this work

How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards.C. K. Gunsalus - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51-64.
The psychology of whistleblowing.Joan E. Sieber - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):7-23.
The voice of experience.Robert L. Sprague - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):33-44.

Add more references