Ethics in Science - Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research

Providing the tools necessary for robust debate, Ethics in Science: Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research explains various forms of scientific misconduct and describes ethical controversies that have occurred in research. The first part of the book includes a description of a variety of ethical violations, why they occur, how they are handled, and what can be done to prevent them along with a discussion of the peer-review process. The second part of the book presents real-life case studies that review the known facts, allowing readers to decide for themselves whether an ethical violation has occurred and if so, what should be done. Discussing the difference between bad science and bad ethics and how to prevent scientific misconduct, this book explains the various forms of scientific misconduct and provides resources for guided discussion of topical controversies. Table of ContentIrresponsible conduct in research: What is it, why does it happen, and how do we identify it when it happens?What constitutes scientific misconduct?Authorship and intellectual propertyBad ethics vs. bad scienceNew results that prove old results wrongThe whistle-blower’s dilemmaWrapping up What happens to those who violate responsible conduct?Human and animal subjectsWrapping up What is peer review’s role in responsible conduct in research?Revisiting Vlad and FrankieCan peer reviewers be unethical?Wrapping up What effect on the public does scientific misconduct have?MMR and autismClimategateHIV vaccineAnimal rights groupsCold fusionBernard KettlewellElectromagnetic field and high-tension power linesFracking and pollutionWrapping up What constitutes responsible conduct from the point of view of human/animal subjects in research? Can intervention or interference by the federal government result in research misconduct? Can we prevent misconduct in research?Intentional negligence in acknowledgment of previous workDeliberate fabrication of dataDeliberate omission of known data that doesn’t agree with hypothesesPassing another researcher’s data as one’s ownPublication of results without consent of all the researchersFailure to acknowledge all the researchers who performed the workConflict-of-interest issuesRepeated publication of too-similar resultsBreach of confidentialityMisrepresenting others’ workWrapping up Case StudiesDarwin and WallaceRangaswamy Srinivasan–VISX patent disputeSchwartz and MirkinCorey and WoodwardCórdova, Scripps Research Institute, and Stockholm UniversityLa Clair and hexacyclinolWoodward and quinineDNADavid Baltimore and Teresa Imanishi-KariJohn Fenn–Yale patent disputeVIOXX®IndexBiographical NoteJohn D' Angelo is Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Alfred University, Alfred, New York.