From baltimore to bell labs: Reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct

Accountability in Research

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 123-135

  Resnik, David B ^a  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bell laboratories; Ethics education; Fraud; Responsible conduct of research; Scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CLASSIFICATION; ETHICS; FORGERY; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HISTORY; HUMAN; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES; NOMENCLATURE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL CONTROL; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; LEGAL APPROACH; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; FRAUD; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; PLAGIARISM; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL CONTROL, FORMAL; TERMINOLOGY; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE;

EID: 0142165903     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620300508     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1991). Misconduct in Science. Washington, DC: AAAS.
2. Bao, Z. et al. (2002). Retraction. Science 298:961.
3. Bird, S., Dustira, A. (2000). New common federal definition of research misconduct in the United States. Science and Engineering Ethics 6:123-130.
4. Black's Law Dictionary (1999) St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
5. Bostanci, A. (2002). Germany gets in step with scientific misconduct rules. Science 296:1778.
6. Broad, W., Wade, N. (1993). Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, 2nd ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.
7. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (1995). Integrity and Misconduct in Research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. Rockville, MD: DHHS.
8. Gorovitz, S. et al. (1979). Philosophical Analysis, 3rd ed. New York: Random House.
9. Guston, D. (1999). Changing frameworks in the U.S. government's attempt to define research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 5:137-154.
10. Kaiser, J. (2001). Query by Congress halts new policy. Science 291:1679-1680.
11. Kalb, P., Koehler, K. (2002). Legal issues in scientific research. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:85-91.
12. Kevles, D. (1998). The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Science, Politics, and Character. New York: W.W. Norton.
13. Koenig, R. (2001). Wellcome rules widen the net. Science 293:1411-1412.
14. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. New York: Harper Collins.
15. LaFollette, M. (1992). Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16. Mishkin, B. (1999). Scientific misconduct: present problems and future trends. Science and Engineering Ethics 5:283-292.
17. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1989). On Being a Scientist. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1992). Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, DC: NAS.
20. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (1996). Policies and procedures for dealing with possible misconduct in science. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 15:1-37.
21. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register 65:76260-76264. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov.
22. Pascal, C. (1999). The history and future of the office of research integrity: Scientific misconduct and beyond. Science and Engineering Ethics 5:183-198.
23. Public Health Service (PHS) (1989). Responsibilities of awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 18:1-10.
24. Public Health Service (PHS) (2001). Application for a Public Health Service Grant. PHS 398 (revised May 2001). Available at: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html.
25. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Resnik, D. (1998). The Ethics of Science. New York: Routledge.
27. Rest, J., Narvaez, D. (eds.) (1994). Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Rotunda, R. (1995). Professional Responsibility, 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
29. Service, R. (2002). Bell labs star physicist found guilty of forging data. Science 298:30-31.
30. Schmaus, W. (1983). Fraud and the norms of science. Science, Technology and Human Values 8:12-22.
31. Shamoo, A., Resnik, D. (2002). Responsible Conduct in Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Steneck, N. (1999). Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: What has and has not been accomplished? Science and Engineering Ethics 5:161-176.
33. Steneck, N. (2000). Assessing the integrity of publicly funded research. In: Proceedings from the ORI Conference on Research on Research Integrity. Washington, DC: ORI, pp. 1-16.
34. Swazey, J., Anderson, M., and Louis, K. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 81:542-543.
35. United States v. Harris. 347 U.S. 612 (1954).
36. Yimin, D. (2002). Beijing U. Issues First-Ever Rules. Science 296:448-449.