| Introduction |
|
xiii | |
| About the author |
|
xvii | |
|
Chapter 1 Irresponsible conduct in research: What is it, why does it happen, and how do we identify it when it happens? |
|
|
1 | (34) |
|
What constitutes scientific misconduct? |
|
|
2 | (26) |
|
Intentional negligence in acknowledgment of previous work |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
Deliberate fabrication of data you have collected |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
Deliberate omission of known data that does not agree with hypotheses |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
Passing another researcher's data as one's own |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
|
|
8 | (4) |
|
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
Publication of results without consent of all the researchers |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
Failure to acknowledge all the researchers who performed the work |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
Authorship and intellectual property |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
Conflict of interest issues |
|
|
19 | (1) |
|
|
|
19 | (2) |
|
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
|
|
22 | (1) |
|
Repeated publication of too-similar results |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
Breach of confidentiality |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
Misrepresenting others' previous work |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
Bad ethics vs. bad science |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
New results that prove old results wrong |
|
|
30 | (2) |
|
The whistle-blower's dilemma |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
|
|
33 | (2) |
|
Chapter 2 What happens to those who violate responsible conduct? |
|
|
35 | (12) |
|
Human and animal subjects |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
|
|
45 | (2) |
|
Chapter 3 What is peer review's role in responsible conduct in research? |
|
|
47 | (6) |
|
Revisiting Vlad and Frankie |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
Can peer reviewers be unethical? |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
|
|
51 | (2) |
|
Chapter 4 What effect on the public does scientific misconduct have? |
|
|
53 | (6) |
|
|
|
53 | (1) |
|
|
|
54 | (1) |
|
|
|
54 | (1) |
|
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
Electromagnetic field and high-tension power lines |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
|
|
57 | (1) |
|
|
|
57 | (2) |
|
Chapter 5 What constitutes responsible conduct from the point of view of human/animal subjects in research? |
|
|
59 | (8) |
|
|
|
66 | (1) |
|
Chapter 6 Can intervention or interference by the federal government result in research misconduct? |
|
|
67 | (4) |
|
|
|
69 | (2) |
|
Chapter 7 Can we prevent misconduct in research? |
|
|
71 | (6) |
|
Intentional negligence in acknowledgment of previous work |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
Deliberate fabrication of data |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
Deliberate omission of known data that doesn't agree with hypotheses |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
Passing another researcher's data as one's own |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
Publication of results without consent of all the researchers |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
Failure to acknowledge all the researchers who performed the work |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
Conflict-of-interest issues |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
Repeated publication of too-similar results |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
Breach of confidentiality |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
Misrepresenting others' work |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
|
|
77 | (28) |
|
|
|
77 | (2) |
|
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
Rangaswamy Srinivasan-VISX patent dispute |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
|
|
80 | (3) |
|
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
|
83 | (3) |
|
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
|
|
85 | (1) |
|
|
|
85 | (1) |
|
|
|
85 | (1) |
|
|
|
85 | (1) |
|
Cordova, Scripps Research Institute, and Stockholm University |
|
|
86 | (2) |
|
|
|
86 | (1) |
|
|
|
86 | (2) |
|
|
|
88 | (1) |
|
|
|
88 | (1) |
|
|
|
88 | (1) |
|
La Clair and hexacyclinol |
|
|
88 | (2) |
|
|
|
88 | (1) |
|
|
|
89 | (1) |
|
|
|
89 | (1) |
|
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
|
|
90 | (2) |
|
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
|
|
91 | (1) |
|
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
|
|
92 | (4) |
|
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
|
|
93 | (2) |
|
|
|
95 | (1) |
|
|
|
96 | (1) |
|
|
|
96 | (1) |
|
David Baltimore and Teresa Imanishi-Kari |
|
|
96 | (5) |
|
|
|
96 | (1) |
|
|
|
97 | (1) |
|
|
|
98 | (1) |
|
|
|
99 | (1) |
|
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
John Fenn-Yale patent dispute |
|
|
101 | (2) |
|
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
|
|
103 | (2) |
|
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
|
|
104 | (1) |
| Index |
|
105 | |
