Research misconduct and the scientific process: Continuing quality improvement

Accountability in Research

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 225-246

  Koppelman White, Elysa ^a  

^a OAKLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics education; Integrity in research; Research misconduct; Scientific method; Standard of care; Torts

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; ARTICLE; BIOETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CLASSIFICATION; EDUCATION; ETHICS; GOVERNMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; ORGANIZATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; BIOETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ETHICS, PROFESSIONAL; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; GUIDELINES; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (U.S.); SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE;

EID: 39049193273     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620600848611     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Buzelli, D. Comments on definitions of misconduct. Found on The Online Ethics Center for Science and Engineering. www.onlineethics.org/dbcom1.html Accessed 13 July, 2006.
2. Definition of Research Misconduct. Federal Register 42CFR50 (title 42, volume 1).
3. Kionka, E. J. (2005). Torts in a Nutshell. Minnesota: Thomson Publishing.
4. Kuhn, T. (1979). Objectivity, value judgment and theory choice, in The Essential Tension: Collected Essays of Thomas Kuhn. Chicago: University Press, 320-339.
5. Kulynich, J. (1998). Intent to deceive: Mental state and scienter in the new uniform federal definition of scientific misconduct, Stanford Technology Law Review. (http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/98_STLR_2/)
6. Millikan, R. A. (1913) On the Elementary Electrical Charge and the Ovagadro Constant. The Physical Review: A Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics. II (2): 109-143. Available at http://www.aip.org/history/gap/millikan/24_millikan.html
7. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., and de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly, Nature, 435(9): 737-738.
8. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering, Institute of edicine. (1992). Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume I. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
9. National Science Foundation. (2003). Research Policy as an Agent of Change: Workshop Report. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsfo5209/nsf05209.pdf
10. Office of Research Integrity, Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services. Scientific Misconduct Investigations, 1993-1997. (1998). http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/misconduct_investigations_1993_1997.pdf
11. Resnik, D. (1998). The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
12. Resnik, D. (1996). Social epistemology and the ethics of research, Studies in History, Philosophy, and Science, 27(4): 565-586.