Ethics of Research: Scientific Misconduct

Erica C Blom, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Raymond De Vries, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Published online: December 2010

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003483

Scientific misconduct presents a challenge, not just to the reputation of the misbehaving scientist, but also to research institutions, the integrity of the scientific record and to the enterprise of science itself. In this article we discuss the varied definitions of scientific misconduct and explore the social sources of the concern with the misbehaviour of researchers as well as competing explanations of the causes of that misbehaviour. We review efforts to prevent scientific misconduct and look at how the (mis)conduct of researchers will be influenced by the trend towards interdisciplinary collaboration and the globalisation of research.

Key Concepts:

  • Common misbehaviours in research threaten the integrity of science in addition to the more egregious, yet less frequent, acts of falsification, fabrication and plagiarism.
  • Scientific misconduct results from the behaviour of ‘bad apples’ and the organisation of science.
  • Responses to scientific misconduct must address individual and organisational sources of misbehaviour.
  • The rise of interdisciplinary science and the globalisation of science present new challenges to integrity in research conduct.

Keywords: scientific misconduct; research misconduct; integrity; ethics of research; organisation of science

 References
    Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR et al. (2007) What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine 82(9): 853–860.
    Anderson MS, Ronning EA, Martinson BC and De Vries R (2010) Extending the Mertonian norms: scientists’ subscription to norm of research. Journal of Higher Education 81(3): 366–393.
    Beecher HK (1966) Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 274: 1354–1360.
    ePath Bradshaw R (1996) FASEB Letter. Available at: http://www.faseb.org/portals/0/pdfs/opa/hhslet.pdf. Accessed on 13 August 2010.
    book Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (2009) On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
    De Vries R, Melissa SA and Martinson BC (2006) Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1(1): 43–50
    Dingwall R (2001) Scientific misconduct as organizational deviance. Zeitschrift fur Rechtssoziologie 2: 245–258.
    book European Science Foundation Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity (2010) Fostering Research Integrity in Europe: Executive Report. Strasbourg: IREG Strasbourg.
    Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738.
    Giles J (2007) Breeding cheats. Nature 445(18): 242–243.
    book Institute of Medicine National Research Council (2002) Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
    Jones J (1999) UK Watchdog issues guidelines to combat medical research fraud. British Medical Journal 319: 660.
    Kalichman M (2007) Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine 82(9): 870–875.
    Koocher GP and Keith-Spiegel P (2010) Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature 466: 438–440.
    Korn D (2002) Scientific misconduct: the State's role has limits. Nature 420: 739.
    book Lemmens T and Waring DR (eds) (2006) Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest and Liability. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
    Martinson BC (2007) Universities and the money fix. Nature 449(13): 141–142.
    Martinson BC, Anderson MS and De Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435: 737–738.
    Merton RK (1938) Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3(5): 672–682.
    Merton RK (1942) A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.
    book Pappworth MH (1967) Human Guinea Pigs: Experimentation on Man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
    Smith J and Godlee F (2005) Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. British Medical Journal 331(7511): 245–246.
    book Steneck NH (2004) ORI: Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Washington, DC: Office of Research Integrity.
 Further Reading
    book Anderson MS and Steneck NH (eds) (2010) International Research Collaborations: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble. New York: Routledge.
    book Elliott C (2010) White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine. Boston: Beacon.
    book Murray TH and Johnston J (eds) (2010) Trust and Integrity in Biomedical Research the Case of Financial Conflicts of Interest. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
    Special Issue: Journal of Higher Education (1994) Perspectives on Research Misconduct. Journal of Higher Education 65(3).

Related Sub-Topics:

Bioethics
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Ethics of Research: Scientific Misconduct
 
How to Cite close
Blom, Erica C, and De Vries, Raymond(Dec 2010) Ethics of Research: Scientific Misconduct. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003483]