Mapping Misconduct: Demarcating Legitimate Science from “Fraud” in the B-06 Lumpectomy Controversy

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 94-113

  Keränen, Lisa ^a  

^a National Communication Association   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer research; demarcation; misconduct; science controversy; technical and public argument spheres

Indexed keywords

EID: 34347357422     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2005.11821644     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Altman, E., (1997). Scientific and research misconduct. In E., Altman & P., Hernon (Eds.), Research misconduct: Issues, implications, and strategies (pp. 1–32). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
2. Altman, L. K., (1994, March 14). Researcher falsified data in breast cancer study. New York Times, p. Al.
3. Altman, R., (1996). Waking up, fighting back: The politics of breast cancer. New York: Little, Brown.
4. Amsterdamska, O., (2005). Demarcating epidemiology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 30, 17–51.
5. Angell, M., & Kassirer, J. P., (1994). Setting the record straight in the breast-cancer trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1448–1450.
6. Ashmore, M., Brown, S. D., & MacMillan, K., (2005). Lost in the mall with Mesmer and Wundt: Demarcations and demonstrations in the psychologies. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 30, 76–110.
7. Bernier, G. M., Jr. (1994). Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1461.
8. Bivens, L. W., & Macfarlane, D. K., (1994). Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1461.
9. Boyd, J., (2002). Public and technical interdependence: Regulatory controversy, out-law discourse, and the messy case of Olestra. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39, 91–109.
10. Brante, T., (1993). Reasons for studying scientific and scientific-based controversies. In T., Brante, S., Fuller, and W., Lynch (Eds.), Controversial science: From content to contention (pp. 177–192). Albany: SUNY Press.
11. Broder, S., (1994). Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]. New England journal of Medicine, 330, 1460–1461.
12. Carnap, R., (1937). The logical syntax of language. London: Routledge.
13. Ceccarelli, L. M., (2005). “Let us (not) theorize the spaces of contention.” Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 30–33.
14. Crewdson, J., (1994, March 13). Fraud in breast cancer study: Doctor lied on data for decade. Chicago Tribune, pp. Al, A16.
15. Evans, R., (2005). Introduction: Demarcation socialized: Constructing boundaries and recognizing difference. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 30, 3–16.
16. Fabj, V., & Sobnosky, M. J., (1995). AIDS activism and the rejuvenation of the public sphere. Argumentation and Advocacy, 31, 163–185.
17. Fackelmann, K. A., (1994, April 30). Breast cancer research on trial. Science News, 145, 282–285.
18. Farrell, T., & Goodnight, G. T., (1981). Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island. Communication Monographs, 48, 271–300.
19. Fisher, B., Bauer, M., Margolese, R., Poisson, R., Pilch, Y., Redmond, C., (1985). Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 312, 665–681.
20. Fisher, B., Costantino, J., Redmond, C., Fisher, E., Margolese, R., Dimitrov, N. V., (1993). Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 328, 4581–4586.
21. Fisher, B., & Redmond, C. K., (1994, May 19). Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1458–1460.
22. Fisher, B., Redmond, C., Poisson, R., Margolese, R., Wolmark, N., Wickerham, D. L., (1989). Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 320, 822–828.
23. Gieryn, T. F., (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Goodnight, G. T., (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.
25. Goodnight, G. T., (2005). Science and technology controversy: A rationale for inquiry. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 26–29.
26. Herman, R., (1994, April 19). Research fraud breaks chain of trust: Investigation interrupts ongoing study. The Washington Post, p. Z6.
27. Hill, G., & Hill, K., (2006). Fraud. The people's law dictionary. Retrieved May 8, 2006, from http://dictionary.law.com
28. Huet, P. M., (1994, May 19). Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]. New England Journal of Mediane, 330, 1462.
29. Jasanoff, S., (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195–230.
30. Jones, C., (1994, March 16). Flawed cancer study haunts many women. New York Times. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com
31. Kolata, G., (1994, March 15). Breast cancer advice unchanged despite flawed data in key study. New York Times, p. Al.
32. LaFollette, M., (1990). Making science our own: Public images of science, 1910–1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Lakatos, I., (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I., Lakatos & A., Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
34. Lerner, B. H., (2001). The breast cancer wars: Hope, fear, and the pursuit of a cure in twentieth-century America. New York: Oxford University Press.
35. Lowry, F., (1994). Dr. Roger Poisson: “I have learned my lesson the hard way.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 151, 835–837.
36. Lynoe, N., Jacobsson, L., & Lundgren, E., (1999). Fraud, misconduct or normal science in medical research: An empirical study of demarcation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25, 501–505.
37. Miller, C. R., (2005). Risk, controversy, and rhetoric: Response to Goodnight. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 34–37.
38. National Academy of Sciences. (1993). Methods, definitions, and basic assumptions. In R., Bulger, E., Heitman, & S. J., Reiser (Eds.), The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences (pp. 106–113). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
39. Office of Research Integrity. (1993). Investigation report: St. Luc Hospital NSABP project (ORI #91–08). Division of Research Integrity: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
40. Olson, K. M., & Goodnight, G. T., (1994). Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 249–276.
41. Palczewski, C. H., (2001). Contesting pornography: Terministic catharsis and definitional argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 1–17.
42. Peto, R., Collins, R., Sackett, D., Darbyshire, J., Babiker, A., Buyse, M., (1997). The trials of Dr. Bernard Fisher: A European perspective on an American episode. Controlled Clinical Trials, 18, 1–13.
43. Phillips, K. R., (1996). The spaces of public dissension: Reconsidering the public sphere. Communication Monographs, 63, 231–248.
44. Phillips, K. R., (1999). A rhetoric of controversy. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 488–510.
45. Pielke, R., Jr., & Byerly, R., Jr. (1998, February). Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today, 42–46.
46. Poisson, R., (1994, May 19). Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1460.
47. Poisson, R., (1997). Le cancer du sein sans mutilation. Montreal: Bibliothéque Nationale du Québec.
48. Popper, K. R, (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
49. Reichenbach, H., (1951). The rise of scientific philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
50. Richer, G., (1994, May 19). Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1462.
51. Robinson, A., (1994). Science and scandal: What can be done about scientific misconduct? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 151, 831–834.
52. Schiappa, E., (2003). Defining reality: Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
53. Schwartz, J., (1994, March 15). Experts try to allay cancer fraud fears. The Washington Post, p. A3.
54. Scientific misconduct in breast cancer research. (1994, April 13 & June 15). Hearings, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
55. Stolberg, S., (1994, April 1). Feeling betrayed by science: A scandal over faked data in a breast cancer study has left patients reeling and a pioneering doctor in disgrace. Los Angeles Times, pp. Al, A22.
56. Taylor, C. A., (1991). Defining the scientific community: A rhetorical perspective on demarcation. Communication Monographs, 58, 402–420.
57. Taylor, C. A., (1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
58. Twedt, S., (1997, August 28). Fisher accepts Pitt's apology, drops lawsuit on breast study. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. Al.
59. Twedt, S., & Carpenter, M., (1994, December 27). Anatomy of a scandal: Fisher describes ordeal as ‘reign of terror.’ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, pp. Al, A6.
60. University of Pittsburgh (1997, September 11). Public statement incidental to termination of litigation in RE: Fisher vs. University of Pittsburgh, et al. University Times 30(2). Retrieved April 26, 2005, from http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/091197/12.html
61. Weijer, C., (1995). The breast cancer research scandal: Addressing the issues. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 152, 1195–1197.
62. What is truth? (1994). Lancet, 343, 1443–1444.
63. Zerbe, M., Young, A. J., & Nagelhout, E. R., (1998). The rhetoric of fraud in breast cancer trials: Manifestations in medical journals and the mass media-and missed opportunities. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 28, 39–61.