2017

This monograph contributes to the scientific misconduct debate from an oblique perspective, by analysing seven novels devoted to this issue, namely: Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis (1925), The affair by C.P. Snow (1960), Cantor’s Dilemma by Carl Djerassi (1989), Perlmann’s Silence by Pascal Mercier (1995), Intuition by Allegra Goodman (2006), Solar by Ian McEwan (2010) and Derailment by Diederik Stapel (2012). Scientific misconduct, i.e. fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, but also other questionable research practices, have become a focus of concern for academic communities worldwide, but also for managers, funders and publishers of research. The aforementioned novels offer intriguing windows into integrity challenges emerging in contemporary research practices. They are analysed from a continental philosophical perspective, providing a stage where various voices, positions and modes of discourse are mutually exposed to one another, so that they critically address and question one another. They force us to start from the admission that we do not really know what misconduct is. Subsequently, by providing case histories of misconduct, they address integrity challenges not only in terms of individual deviance but also in terms of systemic crisis, due to current transformations in the ways in which knowledge is produced. Rather than functioning as moral vignettes, the author argues that misconduct novels challenge us to reconsider some of the basic conceptual building blocks of integrity discourse.

2005

Foreword xx 1. Trust, deception, and self-deception xx 2. Care and carelessness xx Case study: The Baltimore affair xx 3. Completeness and selectiveness xx Case study: The Lomborg case and the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty xx 4. Competition and collegiality xx Case study: The Gallo-Montagnier affair xx 5. Publishing, authorship, and secrecy xx 6. Contract research xx Case study: The adventures of the Berkhout Committee xx 7. Publicity and media xx Case study: The miracle of cold fusion xx 8. Prevention and remedies xx 9. In conclusion xx References xx About this publication xx Foreword Scientific misconduct can damage the quality of scientific research and the attitude of the public to scientific endeavour. Excessive pressure to perform, blind ambition, or the pursuit of material gain can tempt researchers to adopt a casual attitude to generally accepted rules. It is therefore important to question what is and is not permissible when carrying out scientific research, i.e. what constitutes "good scientific practice". This booklet, Scientific Research: Dilemmas and Temptations, is intended mainly as an aid to students and young researchers in developing their own sense of standards, but it is also relevant for more experienced researchers. It is based on actual research practice, in other words the problems and choices that arise during the various phases of a scientific study. This involves designing the experiment, collecting data, analysing and reporting the results, and the way those results are used. The booklet is not intended as a detailed and dogmatic guide to scientific practice. Scientific research is subject to constant change. It demands creativity and a talent for improvisation, and it is too varied and multifaceted to be the subject of a standardised system of rules and guidelines. Rather, this booklet is intended to encourage discussion of various issues so as to contribute to deliberate, responsible decision-making. The key question is always how one should act correctly from the point of view of science and responsibly from the point of view of ethics when designing, carrying out, and reporting on scientific research. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) has concerned itself with questions of what is desirable and undesirable in the field of science for a number of years now. In 1995, the Academy-together with the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU)-published a memorandum on scientific misconduct. This led to a more detailed memorandum on scientific integrity (2001) and to the setting up by the Academy, the NWO and the VSNU of the National Board for Scientific Integrity (LOWI). It was in the context of these initiatives than the first version of this booklet was published in 2000. This new edition has been revised, expanded, supplemented, and where necessary corrected, partly in the light of comments and criticism on the first edition. The Academy hopes that the new edition will be used as teaching material in lectures and discussion groups and that readers and users will again pass on their own comments and suggestions to the Academy

This deliverable is part of Work Package II of the Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research (PRINTEGER) research project. Titled What is integrity? Multidisciplinary Reconnaissance, Work Package II is devoted to the analytic reconnaissance of research integrity and scientific misconduct. This report contributes to this reconnaissance by conceptualizing deviance in science from a criminological perspective. In this chapter we aim at discussing deviance in science or scientific misconduct from a criminological perspective. A criminological approach focusses on the complexity of deviant behavior, as well as on the problematization of this behavior as deviance, and how this is part of the social reaction to it. In order to understand deviance in science we need to deconstruct the several dimensions that shape this paradoxical object (Pires, 1993). As criminologists we cannot look at misconduct in science as if it was a naturally given or ontological entity. On the contrary, we need to take into consideration the social processes that problematize scientific practices (behaviors) as not acceptable or deviant: it is precisely through these social processes not only that the figure of “scientific deviance or misconduct” is constructed, but also and at the same time, that practices of social reaction and control, and possibilities for (early-) intervention, emerge. Therefore, we will address both the phenomenon of so-called misconduct as well as the social reaction it calls into being. Scientific misconduct indeed refers to its classical forms, well known as FFP, meaning Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FFP). But as we will see in this contribution, scientific misconduct refers to a much broader category of researchers’ behavior when doing science.

Menopause International, 2007

Minerva, 1985

Much of the focus of programs designed to promote responsible conduct in research has traditionally been on the high crimes of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. We believe that equally deserving of our attention are the misdemeanors that also can occur. Viewed as individual events, these "little murders" are far less serious. Yet, we believe that in the aggregate they can do great harm, not the least because they can set the stage for far greater crimes.

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 2006

THOSE CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING the integrity of science generally focus on the serious but rare infractions of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). While the violations of FFP are clear threats to the quality of scientific work and public trust in science, are they the behaviors that researchers themselves find most troubling? Noticing that scientists seldom are asked to report their perceptions of the behaviors that pose problems for the enterprise of science, we conducted six focus groups with researchers from major research universities. A total of 51 scientists participated in our focus-group discussions, which lasted from 1.5 to 2 hours each. We found that while researchers were aware of the problems of FFP, in their eyes misconduct generally is associated with more mundane, everyday problems in the work environment. These more common problems fall into four categories: the meaning of data, the rules of science, life with colleagues, and the pressures of production in science. Focus on the "normal misbehaviors" that are part of the ordinary life of researchers allows us to see the way the organization of science generates both compliance and deviance from ethical norms.

Science, 1994

Environmental Sciences Europe

Background Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparency; duplication of data, and co-authorship rights might be compromised. As such, misconduct acts may occur more frequently than foreseen, as frequently these experiences are not openly shared or discussed among researchers. Main body While there are some concerns about the health and the transparency implications of such normalised pressure practices imposed on researchers in scientific research, there is a general acceptance that researchers must take and accept it in order to survive in the competitive world of science. This is even more the case for junior and mid-senior researchers who have recently started their adventure into the universe of independent researchers. Only the slightest...