A secure procedure for early career scientists to report apparent misconduct [Book Review]
Life Sciences, Society and Policy 17 (1):1-5 (2021)
Abstract
Early career scientists sometimes observe senior scientists engage in apparent scientific misconduct, but feel powerless to intervene, lest they imperil their careers. We propose a Secure Reporting Procedure that both protects them, when pursuing those concerns, and treats the senior scientists fairly. The proposed procedure is, we argue, consistent with the ethical principles of the scientific community, as expressed in the codes of its professional organizations. However, its implementation will require changes in procedures and regulations. Those efforts will be a small price to pay for protecting the scientific community’s integrity and fidelity to its principles. We begin by describing the circumstances motivating the proposal, then sketch its design, and, finally, illustrate next steps in its application in two national settings.Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards.C. K. Gunsalus - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51-64.
Research Misconduct in the Croatian Scientific Community: A Survey Assessing the Forms and Characteristics of Research Misconduct.Vanja Pupovac, Snježana Prijić-Samaržija & Mladen Petrovečki - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1):165-181.
Falsification of Credentials in the Research Setting; Scientific Misconduct?Debra M. Parrish - 1996 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 24 (3):260-266.
Falsification of Credentials in the Research Setting; Scientific Misconduct?Debra M. Parrish - 1996 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 24 (3):260-266.
The Swedish Research Council’s Definition of ‘Scientific Misconduct’: A Critique.Håkan Salwén - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):115-126.
Responding to allegations of scientific misconduct: The procedure at the French national medical and health research institute.Jean-Philippe Breittmayer, Martine Bungener, Hugues De The, Evelyne Eschwege, Michel Fougereau, Gilles Guedj, Claude Kordon, Olivier Philippe, Maric-Catherine Postel-Vinay & Laurence Schaffar-Esterle - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):41-48.
The fallout: What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?James S. Lubalin & Jennifer L. Matheson - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):229-250.
The history and future of the office of research integrity: Scientific misconduct and beyond. [REVIEW]Chris B. Pascal - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):183-198.
The medical research council’s approach to allegations of scientific misconduct.Imogen Evans - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):91-94.
Scientific misconduct and science ethics: A case study based approach.Luca Consoli - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):533-541.
Off with Their Heads: The Need to Criminalize Some Forms of Scientific Misconduct.Barbara K. Redman & Arthur L. Caplan - 2005 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33 (2):345-348.
Off with their Heads: The Need to Criminalize some forms of Scientific Misconduct.Barbara K. Redman & Arthur L. Caplan - 2005 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33 (2):345-346.
The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships.Melissa S. Anderson, Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries & Brian C. Martinson - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):437-461.
Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists.James J. Dooley & Helen M. Kerch - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):109-121.
What Prevents Students from Reporting Academic Misconduct? A Survey of Croatian Students.Vanja Pupovac, Stjepka Popović & Vedran Blažina - 2019 - Journal of Academic Ethics 17 (4):389-400.
Analytics
Added to PP
2021-01-25
Downloads
2 (#1,401,121)
6 months
1 (#448,551)
2021-01-25
Downloads
2 (#1,401,121)
6 months
1 (#448,551)
Historical graph of downloads