The processes of science

Science and Technology Ethics

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 22-38

  Bird, Stephanie J ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748361283     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203440964     Document Type: Chapter

References (25)

1. Bird, S.J. (1994) 'Overlooked aspects in the education of science professionals: mentoring, ethics, and professional responsibility', Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 3, pp. 49-55.
2. Bird, S.J. and Sprague, R.L. (2001) 'Mentoring and the responsible conduct of research', Science and Technology Ethics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 451-639.
3. Bird, S.J. and Dustira, A.K. (eds) (1999) 'Scientific misconduct', Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 129-304.
4. Bird, S.J. and Housman, D.E. (1995a) 'Trust and the collection, selection, analysis and interpretation of data: a scientist's view', Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 1, pp. 371-82.
5. Bird, S.J. and Housman, D.E. (1995b) 'Conducting and reporting research', Professional Ethics, vol. 4, nos 3 and 4, pp. 127-54.
6. Bird, S.J. and Housman, D.E. (1997) 'Conducting, reporting and funding research', in D. Elliott and J.E. Stern (eds) Research Ethics: A Reader, Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, pp. 98-108, 120-38.
7. Buzzelli, Donald (1999) 'Serious deviation from accepted practices', Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 5, pp. 275-82.
8. Commission on Research Integrity (1995) Integrity and Misconduct in Research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity, US Department of Health and Human Services, 8.
9. CBE Style Manual Committee (1983) 'Ethical conduct in authorship and publication', in CBE Style Manual, fifth edition, Bethesda, MD: Council of Biological Education, pp. 1-6.
10. Gadlin, Howard (1994) AAAS presentation, San Francisco.
11. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) 'Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals', New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 335, pp. 309-15.
12. Kuhn, Thomas (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolution, second edition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
13. Longino, Helen E. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14. Martin Marietta Document Preparation Guide (1986) Section 3.1.4.3: guidelines regarding criteria for authorship,May 1986.
15. Merton, Robert K. (1968) 'The Matthew effect in science', Science, vol. 159, pp. 56-63.
16. National Academy of Sciences (1992) Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, vol. 1, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17. National Academy of Sciences (1997) Advisor, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. Olson, Steve (1995) On Being a Scientist, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. Rennie, Drummond, Yank, Veronica and Emanuel, Linda (1997) 'When authorship fails: a proposal to make contributors accountable', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 278, pp. 579-85.
20. Resnik, David B. (1997) 'A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science', Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 3, pp. 237-43.
21. Segerstrale, Ullica (1995) 'Good to the last drop? Millikan stories as "canned pedagogy"', Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 1, pp. 197-214.
22. Shrader-Frechette, Kristin (1994) Ethics of Scientific Research, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing.
23. Spier, R.E. and Gorski, A. (eds) (2000) 'Scientific misconduct: an international perspective', Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-144.
24. Swazey, Judith P. and Anderson, Melissa S. (1996) Mentors, Advisors, and Role Models in Graduate and Professional Education, Washington, DC: Association of Academic Health Centers.
25. Tarnow, Eugen (1999) 'The authorship list in science: junior physicists' perceptions of who appears and why', Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 5, pp. 73-88.