The Case of Vipul Bhrigu and the Federal Definition of Research Misconduct

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 411-421

  Rasmussen, Lisa M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Definition of research misconduct; Research misconduct; Sabotage; Vipul Bhrigu

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PERSONNEL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES OFFICE OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY;

EID: 84883198729     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-013-9459-y     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Buzzelli, D. E. (1993). The definition of misconduct in science: A view from the NSF. Science 259, 584–585; 647–648.
2. Commission on Research Integrity (1995). Integrity and misconduct in research. Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/report_commission.pdf.
3. Federal Register (1987). Misconduct in science and engineering research, Vol. 52, Issue 126, July 1, pp. 24,468–24,469. Available online: http://archive.org/stream/federalregister52iunit#page/n97/mode/2up.
4. Federal Register (1989). Responsibilities of awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science; final rule. August 8, pp. 32446–51. Available online: http://archive.org/stream/federalregister54munit#page/n631/mode/2up.
5. Federal Register (2000). Office of Science and Technology Policy. Executive Office of the President; Federal Policy on Research Misconduct; Preamble for Research Misconduct Policy. December 6, pp. 76,260–76,264. Available online: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-12-06/pdf/00-30852.pdf.
6. Federal Register (2011). Findings of research misconduct. April 27, pp. 23,599–23,600. Available online: https://federalregister.gov/a/2011-10150.
7. Goodman, B. (1996). Scientists are split over findings of research integrity commission. The Scientist, January 22. Available online: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/17757/.
8. Goodman, B. (1996b). HHS panel issues proposals for implementing misconduct report. The Scientist, July 22. Available online: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/18005/.
9. Macilwain, C. (2012). The time is right to confront misconduct. Nature 488(7).
10. Maher, B. (2010). Sabotage. Nature,467, 516–518.
11. Maher, B. (2011). Lab sabotage deemed research misconduct. Nature News Blog, April 27. Available online at: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/04/lab_sabotage_deemed_research_m_1.html.
12. Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1992). Responsible science, Vol. I: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
13. Schachman, H. K. (1993). What is misconduct in science? Science 261, 148–149; 183.
14. Steneck, N. H. (1994). Research universities and scientific misconduct: History, policies, and the future. Journal of Higher Education,65(3), 310–330.