Misconduct in Science

Behaviour which ranges from the flagrant and persistent fabrication of data, to proven plagiarism, to the obstinent defense of an indefensible paper
References in periodicals archive ?
The Academy report argues that the definition of misconduct in science should be limited to "fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reporting research" [34, p.
In roughly two years' time, the Office of Scientific Integrity of the Public Health Service (PHS) closed 110 alleged cases of misconduct in science, completing full investigations of 21 cases, and finding misconduct in 15 of the cases [(34) pp.
With that quote from Albert Einstein, a 22-member panel of scientists, attorneys, research administrators, historians and philosophers released their long-awaited report on misconduct in science.
The report defines misconduct in science as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing or performing research, or in reporting findings.
The definitions and boundaries of misconduct in science and research are important public policy issues.
Following the NSF's process, the PHS (4) also published an Advance NPRM (a preliminary public announcement) and then a Proposed Rule (an NPRM) in 1988, seeking public comment on a PHS definition of misconduct in science including: "(1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deception or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research; or (2) material failure to comply with other requirements that are uniquely related to the conduct of research.
Despite growing evidence of misconduct in science during the 1970s, as the decade of the 1980s began, the nation's research universities had not developed or even thought much about scientific misconduct policies.
Indeed, from Zuckerman's 1977 article on deviant behavior in science (59) through the 1981 hearings and continuing to the present day, two "assumptions" are common in most discussions of scientific misconduct: (1) that there are no reliable estimates of the frequency of misconduct in science and (2) that whatever the numbers might be, scientific misconduct is rare.
This conclusion was derived from a review of six survey studies that measured the extent of misconduct in science and engineering.
Survey Data on the Extent of Misconduct in Science and Engineering.
Therefore, both the government and the academic community need effective procedures for dealing with misconduct in science.
Despite the need for effective procedures for establishing whether misconduct in science has occurred, considerable controversy has arisen over which procedures should be used.