Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2005, Pages

  Sovacool, Benjamin K ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CRIME; CRIMINAL LAW; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PERSONNEL; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; WHISTLEBLOWING;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; LEGAL APPROACH;

CRIME; CRIMINAL LAW; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; INTENTION; PLAGIARISM; RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUPPORT; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES; WHISTLEBLOWING;

EID: 27944434262     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160500313242     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Agency considers ethics of study. 2001. The Roanoke Times February 25: A17.
2. Allchin, Douglas. 2001. Error types. Perspectives on Science 9: 38-59.
3. Allchin, Douglas. 2004. Error and the nature of science. Education and Bioscience in the Classroom. Retrieved December, 2004, from http://www. actionbioscience.org/education/allchin2.html
4. Anderson, Robert M. 1988. The Federal Government's role in regulating misconduct in scientific and technological research. Georgetown University Journal of Law & Technology 121(3): 114-154.
5. Association of Research Libraries, Association of American Universities, and Pew Higher Education Roundtable. 1998. Policy Perspectives: To Publish and Perish. Retrieved January, 2004, from http://www.arl.org/scomm/pew/pewrept.html.
6. Breen, K. J. 2003. Misconduct in medical research: Whose responsibility? Internal Medicine Journal 33:186-191.
7. Bruhn, John G. et al. 2002. Moral positions and academic conduct: Parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. The Journal of Higher Education 73(4): 461-493.
8. Burk, Dan L. 1995. Research misconduct: Deviance, due process, and the disestablishment of science. George Mason Law Review 3:305-361.
9. Cassidy, Marie M. 2000. Introduction: Forum on responsible conduct in biomedical research. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 224(4): 203-204.
10. Dorn, Edwin. 1997. Department of Defense committed to zero tolerance of sexual harassment. Prepared Remarks Before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Retrieved March 1, 2004, from http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/1997/di1209. html
11. Eisen, Arri and Roberta M. Berry. 2002. The absent professor: Why we don't teach research ethics and what to do about it. American Journal of Bioethics 4(2): 38-49.
12. Eisenhofer, Graeme. 1996. Scientific Productivity: Waning Importance for Career Development of Today's Scientist? Retrieved August, 2003, from http://www.his.com/~graeme/pandp.html.
13. Farthing, M. J. G. 2000. Research misconduct: Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. British Journal of Surgery 87:1605-1609.
14. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2002. Hate Crime Statistics, 2002: A Resource Book. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
15. Flores, Joe A. 2000. International scientific misconduct and the legal system. International Trade Law Journal 9:60-90.
16. Frankel, Mark S. 2000. Scientific societies as sentinels of responsible research conduct. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 224(4): 216-219.
17. Gibelman, Margaret and Sheldon R. Gelman. 2001. Learning from the mistakes of others: A look at scientific misconduct in research. Journal of Social Work Education 37(2): 104-127.
18. Goldberg, Daniel. 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.
19. Goldner, Jesse A. 1998. The unending saga of legal controls of scientific misconduct: A clash of cultures needing resolution. American Journal of Law & Medicine 24:293-356.
20. Green, Harold P. 1987. Scientific responsibility and the law. University of Michigan Journal of Law Review 20:1009-1041.
21. Howard, Elizabeth. 1994. Science misconduct and due process: A case of process due. Hastings Law Journal 45:309-340.
22. Hrabak, Maja et al. 2004. Academic misconduct among medical students in a post- communist country. Medical Education 38:276-285.
23. Kline, Sandy. 1993. Scientific misconduct: A form of white coat crime. The Journal of Pharmacy & Law 15(2): 103-143.
24. Kulynych, Jennifer 1998. Intent to deceive: Mental state and scienter in the new uniform federal definition of scientific misconduct. Stanford Technology Law Review 2:204-229.
25. Kuzma, Susan M. 1992. Criminal liability for misconduct in scientific research. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 25:357-401.
26. LaFollette, Marcel C. 2000. The evolution of the "scientific misconduct" issue: An historical overview. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 224(4): 211-215.
27. Maechling, Charles. 1992. Investigating scientific misconduct: the laboratory is not a courtroom. Brookings Review 10(3): 44-62.
28. Maschke, Karen J. 2002. What's the professor got to do with it? American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): 63-64.
29. Nardini, Lisa Malloy. 1996. Dishonoring the honorarium ban: Exemption for federal scientists. The American University Law Review 45:885-914.
30. National Academy of Sciences. 2004. Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). 1998. Scientific Misconduct Investigations 1993-1997. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
32. Prager, Dennis J. and Gilbert S. Omenn. 1980. Research, Innovation, and University-Industry Linkages. Science 207:379-384.
33. Quinn, Thomas C. et al. 2000. Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Journal of the American Medical Association 342(13): 921-929.
34. Resnik, David B. 2000. Financial interests and research bias. Perspectives on Science 8(3): 255-285.
35. Reynolds, Glenn Harlan. 1999. Thank God for the lawyers: Some thoughts on the (mis)regulation of scientific misconduct. University of Tennessee Law Review 66:801-823.
36. Rhodes, Rosamond. 2002. The pressing need for postdoctoral research ethics education. American Journal of Bioethics 4(2): 1-3.
37. Shamoo, Adil E. and Cheryl D. Dunigan. 2000. Ethics in research. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 224(4): 205-210.
38. Shamoo, Adil E. and David B. Resnik. 2003. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Spece, Roy G. and John J. Marchalonis 2001. Fourth amendment restrictions on scientific misconduct: Proceedings at public universities. Case Western Reserve University Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine 11:571-620.
40. Steinberg, Nisan A. 2000. Regulation of scientific misconduct in federally funded research. South California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 10:39-71.
41. Steneck, Nicholas H. 2002. Institutional and individual responsibilities for integrity in research. American Journal of Bioethics 4(2): 51-53.
42. United States Department of Health and Human Services. 1999. Report of the Department of Health and Human Services Review Group on Research Misconduct and Research Integrity. Retrieved February, 2004, from http://ori.dhhs.gov/ publications/dhhsreview2.asp#background
43. Wagner, Wendy E. 1997. Choosing ignorance in the manufacture of toxic products. Cornell Law Review 82:773-812.