Top

Published in:

01-12-2008

Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science?

Author: Benjamin K. Sovacool

Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | Issue 4/2008

Abstract

This paper identifies three distinct narratives concerning scientific misconduct: a narrative of “individual impurity” promoted by those wishing to see science self-regulated; a narrative of “institutional impropriety” promoted by those seeking greater external control of science; and a narrative of “structural crisis” among those critiquing the entire process of research itself. The paper begins by assessing contemporary definitions and estimates of scientific misconduct. It emphasizes disagreements over such definitions and estimates as a way to tease out tension and controversy over competing visions of scientific research. It concludes by noting that each narrative suggests a different approach for resolving misconduct, and that the difference inherent in these views may help explain much of the discord concerning unethical behavior in the scientific community.

Abraham, J., & Sheppard, J. (1999). Complacent and conflicting scientific expertise in British and American drug regulation: clinical risk assessment of triazolam. Social Studies of Science, 29(6), 803–843. doi:10.1177/030631299029006001.PubMedCrossRef

Barnes, J. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Black, Charles Allen (2004). The cure for deadly patent practices: preventing technology suppression and patent shelving in the life sciences. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 14, 396–414.

Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2006). Science crime: the Korean cloning scandal and the role of ethics. Science & Public Policy, 33(8), 601–612. doi:10.3152/147154306781778650.

Bridgstock, M. (1982). A sociological approach to fraud in science. Journal of Sociology (Melbourne, Vic.), 18(3), 364–384. doi:10.1177/144078338201800305.

Broad, W.J. (1980). Would-be academician pirates papers. Science, 208, 1438–1440. doi:10.1126/science.208.4451.1438.PubMedCrossRef

Broad, W.J. (1981). Fraud and the structure of science. Science, 212(4491), 137–141. doi:10.1126/science.7209527.PubMedCrossRef

Cohen, J., & Siegel, E. (2005). Academic medical centers and medical research: the challenges ahead. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(11), 1367–1372. doi:10.1001/jama.294.11.1367.PubMedCrossRef

Eisen, A., & Berry, R. (2002). The absent professor: why we don’t teach research ethics and what to do about it. The American Journal of Bioethics, 4(2), 38–49. doi:10.1162/152651602320957556.CrossRef

Farthing, M. (2000). Research misconduct: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. British Journal of Surgery, 87, 1605–1609. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01692.x.PubMedCrossRef

Feyerabend, P.K. (1965). Against method. London: New Left Books.

Fisher, R.A. (1936). Has Mendel’s work been rediscovered? Annals of Science, 1, 115–137. doi:10.1080/00033793600200111.CrossRef

Frankel, M. (2000). Scientific societies as sentinels of responsible research conduct. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 224(4), 216–219. doi:10.1111/jel.1525-1373.2000.22424.x.PubMedCrossRef

Gilbelman, M., & Gelman, S.R. (2005). Scientific misconduct in social welfare research: preventative lessons from other fields. Social Work Education, 24(3), 275–295. doi:10.1080/02615470500050461.CrossRef

Goldberg, D. (2003). Research fraud: a sui generic problem demands a sui generic solution (plus a little due process). Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 20, 47–69.

Hackett, E.J. (1990). Science as a vocation in the 1990s: the changing organizational culture of academic science. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(3), 241–279. doi:10.2307/1982130.CrossRef

Hackett, B. (2005). Essential tensions: identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 787–826. doi:10.1177/0306312705056045.CrossRef

Howard, E. (1994). Science misconduct and due process: a case of process due. The Hastings Law Journal, 45, 309–340.

Jasanoff, S. (1996). Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 29, 397–414.

Kaiser, J. (1999). Policing of science: a misconduct definition that finally sticks? Science, 286(5439), 391. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.391a.PubMedCrossRef

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kochan, C.A., & Budd, J.M. (1992). The persistence of fraud in the literature: the Darsee Case. Journal of the American Society for Information Science American Society for Information Science, 43(7), 488–493. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199208)43:7<488::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-7.PubMedCrossRef

Krimsky, S. (2005). The funding effect in science and its implications for the judiciary. Journal of Law and Policy, 13, 45–51.

Kuzma, S.M. (1992). Criminal liability for misconduct in scientific research. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. University of Michigan. Law School, 25, 357–401.PubMed

Lefor, A.T. (2005). Scientific misconduct and unethical experimentation: historic parallels and moral implications. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, California), 21, 881. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2004.10.011.

Manwell, C., & Baker, A. (1981). Honesty in science: a partial test of a sociobiological model of the social structure of science. Search. Science, Technology & Society, 12(6), 151–162.

Marshall, E. (2000). Scientific misconduct: how prevalent is fraud? That’s a million dollar question. Science, 290(5497), 1662–1663. doi:10.1126/science.290.5497.1662.PubMedCrossRef

Martin, B. (1992). Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus, 10(1), 83–98.CrossRef

Martinson, B., et al. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 453, 737–738. doi:10.1038/435737a.CrossRef

Merton, R.K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

National Academy of Sciences (1989). On being a scientist. Committee on the Conduct of Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy.

National Academy of Sciences (2004). Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: National Academies.

Newton, R. (1977). The crime of Claudius Ptolemy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Nowotny, H. (2000). Transgressive competence: the narrative of expertise. European Journal of Social Theory, 3(1), 5–21.

ORI. 2005. 42 CFR Part 93. Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct.

Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559–589. doi:10.1086/230316.CrossRef

Redman, B., & Caplan, A. (2005). Off with their heads: the need to criminalize some forms of scientific misconduct. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33, 344–361. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2005.tb00498.x.CrossRef

Resnik, D.B. (1998). The ethics of science: an introduction. New York: Routledge.

Resnik, D.B. (2003). From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10, 123–135. doi:10.1080/08989620300508.PubMed

Resnik, D.B. (2007). The price of truth: how money affects the norms of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reynolds, S.M. (2004). ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992–2002. Clinical Trials, 1, 509–516. doi:10.1191/1740774504cn048oa.PubMedCrossRef

Saunders, K.M., & Levine, L. (2004). Better, faster cheaper—later: what happens when technologies are suppressed. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 11, 23–69.

Shamoo, A.E., & Resnik, David B. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2005). Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(5), W1–7. doi:10.1080/15265160500313242.PubMedCrossRef

Wagner, W., & Michaels, D. (2004). Equal treatment for regulatory science: extending the controls governing the quality of public research to private research. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 30, 119–154.

Weinstein, D. (1979). Fraud in science. Social Science Quarterly, 59(4), 638–647.

Westfall, R.S. (1994). The life of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ziman, J. (1970). Some pathologies of the scientific life. Nature, 227, 996–997. doi:10.1038/227996a0.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science?
Author: Benjamin K. Sovacool
Publication date: 01-12-2008
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry / Issue 4/2008
Print ISSN: 1176-7529
Electronic ISSN: 1872-4353
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9113-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science?

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2008

In That Case

Response

The Best Bioethics Book You Read this Year Could Be a Documentary Film. A Review of Naked on the Inside

Republication: In That Case

Futility by Any Other Name. The Texas 10 Day Rule

Editorial