scientific misconduct and science ethics a case study based approach

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach

Affiliation.

1 Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (ISIS), Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1, 6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands. [email protected]
PMID: 16909155
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6

The Schön misconduct case has been widely publicized in the media and has sparked intense discussions within and outside the scientific community about general issues of science ethics. This paper analyses the Report of the official Committee charged with the investigation in order to show that what at first seems to be a quite uncontroversial case, turns out to be an accumulation of many interesting and non-trivial questions (of both ethical and philosophical interest). In particular, the paper intends to show that daily scientific practices are structurally permeated by chronic problems; this has serious consequences for how practicing scientists assess their work in general, and scientific misconduct in particular. A philosophical approach is proposed that sees scientific method and scientific ethics as inextricably interwoven. Furthermore, the paper intends to show that the definition of co-authorship that the members of the Committee use, although perhaps clear in theory, proves highly problematic in practice and raises more questions that it answers. A final plea is made for a more self-reflecting attitude of scientists as far as the moral and methodological profile of science is concerned as a key element for improving not only their scientific achievements, but also their assessment of problematic cases.

Education, Professional
Ethics, Research* / education
Nanotechnology / ethics
Organizational Case Studies
Peer Review, Research*
Scientific Misconduct*
Terminology as Topic

Advanced Search
All new items
Journal articles
Manuscripts
All Categories
Metaphysics and Epistemology
Epistemology
Metaphilosophy
Metaphysics
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Religion
Value Theory
Applied Ethics
Meta-Ethics
Normative Ethics
Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
Philosophy of Law
Social and Political Philosophy
Value Theory, Miscellaneous
Science, Logic, and Mathematics
Logic and Philosophy of Logic
Philosophy of Biology
Philosophy of Cognitive Science
Philosophy of Computing and Information
Philosophy of Mathematics
Philosophy of Physical Science
Philosophy of Social Science
Philosophy of Probability
General Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Science, Misc
History of Western Philosophy
Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
17th/18th Century Philosophy
19th Century Philosophy
20th Century Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy, Misc
Philosophical Traditions
African/Africana Philosophy
Asian Philosophy
Continental Philosophy
European Philosophy
Philosophy of the Americas
Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
Philosophy, Misc
Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
Philosophy, General Works
Teaching Philosophy
Philosophy, Miscellaneous
Other Academic Areas
Natural Sciences
Social Sciences
Cognitive Sciences
Formal Sciences
Arts and Humanities
Professional Areas
Other Academic Areas, Misc
Submit a book or article
Upload a bibliography
Personal page tracking
Archives we track
Information for publishers
Introduction
Submitting to PhilPapers
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscriptions
Editor's Guide
The Categorization Project
For Publishers
For Archive Admins
PhilPapers Surveys
Bargain Finder
About PhilPapers
Create an account

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: A case study based approach

Reprint years, philarchive, external links.

From the Publisher via CrossRef (no proxy)
link.springer.com (no proxy)
link.springer.com [2] (no proxy)

Through your library

Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
Configure custom resolver

Search life-sciences literature (43,931,735 articles, preprints and more)

Available from publisher site using DOI. A subscription may be required. Full text
Citations & impact
Similar Articles

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach.

Author information, affiliations.

Consoli L 1

Science and Engineering Ethics , 01 Jul 2006 , 12(3): 533-541 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6 PMID: 16909155

Abstract

Full text links .

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6

References

Articles referenced by this article (14)

Literature on this topic is vast. For a case study of how media influence the public perception of science, see Gregory J. (2003) The popularization and excommunication of Fred Hoyle’s ‘life-from-space’ theory. Public Understanding of Science 12: 25–46. For a sociological study of the impact of technology on society and the public, an interesting perspective is offered by Ellul, J. (1967) The technological society. USA: Random House. See also Boulter D. (1999) Public perception of science and associated general issues for the scientist. Phytochemistry 50: 1–7; B.L. Cohen, B.L. (1998) Public perception versus results of scientific risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System. Safety 59: 101–105.

Lafollette, m. (1992) stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. berkeley: university of california press., drenth, p.j.d. (1999) scientists at fault: causes and consequences of misconduct in science, in: european science and scientists between freedom and responsibility. luxembourg: office for official publications of the european community., m. beasley et al. (2002) report of the investigation committee on the possibility of scientific misconduct in the work of hendrik schön and coauthors. lucent technologies. available online at the url: http://www.lucent.com/news_events/researchreview.html. we will refer for convenience to this document from now on as “report”., bell labs. winning streak brought awe, and then doubt..

Science, (5578):34-37 2002

MED: 12098682

Goss Levi, B. (2002) Bell Labs Convenes Committee to Investigate Questions of Scientific Misconduct. Physics Today.

Keeping up appearances..

Nature, (6906):419 2002

MED: 12368819

Chang, K. (09-26-2002) Panel Says Bell Labs Scientist Faked Discoveries”, New York Times.

Kolata, g. (09-29-2002) assigning blame is fraud is found. new york times., not quite shipshape..

AUTHOR UNKNOWN

Nature, (6994):789 2004

MED: 15215820

Citations & impact

Impact metrics, citations of article over time, article citations, expanding research integrity: a cultural-practice perspective..

Valkenburg G , Dix G , Tijdink J , de Rijcke S

Sci Eng Ethics , 27(1):10, 09 Feb 2021

Cited by: 6 articles | PMID: 33559767 | PMCID: PMC7872949

Making researchers responsible: attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct.

BMC Med Ethics , 21(1):56, 07 Jul 2020

Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 32635905 | PMCID: PMC7339540

Addressing research integrity challenges: from penalising individual perpetrators to fostering research ecosystem quality care.

Zwart H , Ter Meulen R

Life Sci Soc Policy , 15(1):5, 10 Jun 2019

Cited by: 8 articles | PMID: 31179512 | PMCID: PMC6556950

When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media.

Ampollini I , Bucchi M

Sci Eng Ethics , 26(1):451-474, 03 Apr 2019

Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 30945163

Scientific Ethics: A New Approach.

Sci Eng Ethics , 25(4):1193-1216, 04 Jun 2018

Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 29869131

Science ethics education part II: changes in attitude toward scientific fraud among medical researchers after a short course in science ethics.

Vuckovic-Dekic L , Gavrilovic D , Kezic I , Bogdanovic G , Brkic S

J BUON , 17(2):391-395, 01 Apr 2012

Cited by: 4 articles | PMID: 22740224

Overview: underserved areas of education in the responsible conduct of research: authorship.

Kalichman MW

Sci Eng Ethics , 17(2):335-339, 26 May 2011

Cited by: 7 articles | PMID: 21611821 | PMCID: PMC3428198

Free full text in Europe PMC

Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies?

Sci Eng Ethics , 9(2):243-256, 01 Apr 2003

Cited by: 13 articles | PMID: 12774656

Ethical publishing: the innocent author's guide to avoiding misconduct.

Menopause Int , 13(3):98-102, 01 Sep 2007

Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 17933094

The integrity of science - lost in translation?

Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol , 28(2):339-347, 28 Mar 2014

Cited by: 6 articles | PMID: 24810194

Europe PMC is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Open access
Published: 10 June 2019

Addressing research integrity challenges: from penalising individual perpetrators to fostering research ecosystem quality care

Hub Zwart ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8846-5213 1 &
Ruud ter Meulen 2

Life Sciences, Society and Policy volume 15 , Article number: 5 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

5241 Accesses

17 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Concern for and interest in research integrity has increased significantly during recent decades, both in academic and in policy discourse. Both in terms of diagnostics and in terms of therapy, the tendency in integrity discourse has been to focus on strategies of individualisation (detecting and punishing individual deviance). Other contributions to the integrity debate, however, focus more explicitly on environmental factors, e.g. on the quality and resilience of research ecosystems, on institutional rather than individual responsibilities, and on the quality of the research culture. One example of this is the Bonn PRINTEGER Statement . This editorial to the LSSP thematic series (article collection) entitled Addressing integrity challenges in research: the institutional dimension invites authors to contribute to the research integrity debate. Notably, we are interested in submissions addressing issues such as institutional responsibilities, changes in the research climate, duties of research managers and research performing or research funding organisations (RPOs and RFOs) as well as new approaches to integrity education.

Introduction

Concern for and interest in research integrity has increased significantly during recent decades, both in academic and in policy discourse (Horbach & Halffman 2017 ). Notably in the public realm, integrity debates are often triggered by spectacular (high visibility) misconduct cases, committed by prominent scientists (or even science celebrities), such as the Schön case (Consoli 2006 ), the Hwang case (Gottweis & Triendl 2006 ; Zwart 2008 ), the Macchiarini case (Vogel 2016) and the Stapel case (Zwart 2017 ), conveying a common narrative structure, starting with a spectacular ascent, based on fraud, and resulting in a dramatic fall from grace and followed by an avalanche of academic and public comments. Such cases fuel the question how widespread (or even endemic) misconduct practices in contemporary research have become, and how the current wave of integrity challenges in contemporary research can best be addressed. This editorial to the LSSP thematic series (article collection) entitled Addressing integrity challenges in research: the institutional dimension invites authors to contribute to the research integrity debate.

This article collection starts from the observation that, both in terms of diagnostics and in terms of therapy, the tendency in integrity discourse has been to focus on the personal ethics and motivations of individuals (individualisation), a tendency which, on the institutional level, concurs with the prevention of damage control (by framing cases of misconduct as individual aberrations). In top-down approaches, individualisation and reputational damage prevention often go hand in hand, we would argue: besides being selectively recruited and closely monitored, individual researchers should know and obey the rules, and should be punished individually if things go wrong. One example of this trend is a publication by Tijdink et al. ( 2016 ) which connects research misconduct to the “narcissistic, Machiavellianistic and psychopathic” personality traits of individual researchers. The authors conclude that their main finding (that Machiavellianism is the personality trait that is most strongly associated with research misbehaviour) “may inform those involved in the recruitment of scientific personnel” as well as research managers involved in “integrity monitoring”. In other words, a personality test may increase opportunities for prevention of individual integrity deviance. At the same time, the authors are hesitant when it comes to “translating” their results “directly to the practice”, for example in the context of hiring scientific personnel (p. 10). Rather than being employed as a selection tool, a personality test may increase awareness of these personality traits in researchers and research groups and thus help scientists to gain more insight into and control over their own behaviour during the research process.

Other contributions to the integrity debate, however, focus more explicitly on environmental factors, e.g. on the quality and resilience of research ecosystems, on institutional rather than individual responsibilities, and on the quality of the research culture. An example of this is the paper entitled “Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for Research Performing Organisations”, also known as The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement (Forsberg et al. 2018 , PRINTEGER 2018 ). The objective is to advise research managers and research performing organisations and to complement existing instruments by taking into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers (the work-floor perspective) and by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. Not only because, in most disciplines, research is team-work, involving intense collaboration and mutual dependence, but also because many contributors to the debate discern a connection between integrity issues (also in top quality science) and the extent to which the global research arena is becoming increasingly competitive, resulting in wide-spread symptoms such as scientific productivism, the increase of pace and scale, output indicator fetishism and the focus on quantity over quality. In other words, high visibility cases (revolving around exposed science celebrities) seem symptomatic of increasing tensions between performance indicators and quality care.

This was quite obvious in the Hwang case, for instance. Whereas initially comments on Hwang’s scientific “breakthrough” (his claim that he had succeeded on cloning human stem cells) voiced the concern that (in the context of global competition) Asian research “tigers” were out-competing Western science (hampered by ethical constraints), after the misconduct exposure comments in prominent journals such as Nature shifted towards a different gear, arguing that ethics and integrity concerns are neither a nuisance nor a constraint, but rather an indispensable aspect of quality care and research governance (Gottweis 2006; Zwart 2008 ). The question is: do we have our infrastructures for addressing ethics and integrity issues in place? Are we able to address integrity challenges emerging in the global research arena? And who are “we”? Such questions emerge against the backdrop of a broader range of concerns (such as for instance the replication crisis and the concern that trust in and credibility of scientific research is quickly eroding, notably in the post-truth era.

Against this backdrop, integrity has not only become an issue for researchers and research managers, but also for research funding agencies, such as for instance the European Commission. During recent years, numerous calls were published and numerous research projects were or are being funding (with budgets ranging from two to 4 million Euros) to foster research integrity in Europe. This thematic Series was launched by one of these funded projects, namely Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research (PRINTEGER: Swafs 2014-Garri 5; project ID 665926). Building on our results, but also taking into account the results of other projects, we conclude that efforts to foster research integrity should build on two basic recommendations:

Fostering research integrity should be a bottom-up process, informed by practice, by integrity work in every-day research settings

First and foremost, research integrity should be strengthened, not via individualisation (i.e. surveillance, detection, exposure and punishment of individual deviance) but via institutionalisation (i.e. promoting care and concern for research ecosystem quality)

In response to how the international research climate is changing (the rise of big science, the increase of scale and pace of research, the attention given to quantifiable performance indicators for funding or assessing research, etc.) and in order to address the integrity challenges entailed in them, research institutes (notably universities) should strengthen research integrity by fostering a culture of deliberation, by facilitating open dialogue and by creating a safe environment for identifying and discussing integrity issues emerging in daily practice. Rather than applying norms and guidelines in a top-down manner, or focussing on reputational damage repair, research institutes should provide the conditions which allow collective responsibility to flourish.

Although codes and guidelines (such as the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity , ALLEA 2017 ) are important, codes require a resilient integrity culture to be effective. Codes may provide guidance to the extent that they are informed by accumulated experiences. And they may bring to our attention questionable practices which have become routines but should actually be reconsidered. Indeed, they allow us to articulate what is often taken for granted, so that we can reassess established practice. In real practice, however, where dilemmas can be quite unique, such codes may often prove too general. Therefore, they need a context, a supportive research environment to work. Codes have to be practiced and internalised and require a culture of deliberation to have an impact. Therefore, in the current integrity debate, besides codes, we need to care for our codes. Integrity care focusses on personal relationships, attentiveness, responsiveness, dialogue, competence and context (Tronto 2005). Rather than operating as solitary individuals, researchers tend to be highly dependent on one another. Although the current focus on codes and guidelines is understandable and laudable in itself, they often function as straightjackets if insufficient attention is given to institutional responsibilities, first and foremost for fostering conditions for quality care. While on the institutional level strategies of individualisation are often used to prevent reputational damage, we advocate the endorsement of an attitude of openness, transparency and deliberation, resulting in sharing experiences and mutual organisational learning. Likewise, funding agencies could focus less on quantifiable performance indicators and more on good science , which may be time-consuming, also because sensitivity to societal concerns will become an inherent dimension of the research’s methodology.

This shift of focus from individual deviance to institutional quality care should be the starting point, not only for developing integrity policies, but also for designing educational tools for future researchers. Whereas current integrity teaching (e.g. the interactive integrity module The Lab , developed by the NIH Office of Research Integrity) often focus on individual dilemmas and decisions, next generation educational tools should bring the institutional context and responsibilities more explicitly into view, so that the primary question no longer is: what should be my decision as an individual researcher facing a particular dilemma, but rather: how could this dilemma emerge in the first place? Rather than solving integrity puzzles, the focus should be on fostering a research environment of deliberation and shared responsibilities. Thus, a wider set of instruments becomes available for research managers to create a research climate where integrity challenges can be successfully met and where individual integrity dilemmas can be placed in a broader context, as symptoms of more general developments. The focus of attention will shift to integrity team work: from how to prevent individual fraud to how to address potentially disruptive trends (e.g. increase of competition, focus on quantifiable performance indicators, etc.) and the perverse incentives to which they may give rise (indicator fetishism, output steering, h-factor obsession, etc.).s

Via this editorial, we want to invite participants in the academic and policy debate to share their views on how to foster research integrity, paying special attention to issues such as institutional responsibility, changes in the research climate, duties of research managers and research performing or research funding organisations (RPOs and RFOs) as well as new approaches to integrity education.

Abbreviations

All European Academies

National Institutes of Health

Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research

Research funding organisation

Research Performing Organisation

Science with an for Society

ALLEA (All European Academies). The European code of conduct for research integrity (revised edition). Berlin: ALLEA; 2017.

Consoli L. Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006;12:533–41.

Article Google Scholar

Forsberg E-M, Anthun F O, Bailey S, Birchley G, Bout H, Casonato C et al. working with research integrity: guidance for research performing organisations: the Bonn PRINTEGER statement. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4 .

Gottweis H, Triendl R. South-Korean policy failure and the Hwang debacle. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:141–3.

Horbach S, Halffman W. Promoting virtue or punishing fraud: mapping contrasts in the language of ‘scientific integrity’. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23:1461–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y .

PRINTEGER (2018) PRINTEGER consensus statement. https://printeger.eu/bonn-printeger-statement/

Google Scholar

Tijdink JK, Bouter LM, Veldkamp CLS, van de Ven PM, Wicherts JM, Smulders YM. Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch scientists: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163251. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163251 .

Zwart H. Challenges of macro-ethics: bioethics and the transformation of knowledge production. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2008;5(4):283–93.

Zwart H. Tales of research misconduct: a Lacanian diagnostics of integrity challenges in sciences novels. Library of ethics and applied philosophy 36. Springer. In: ISBN 978–3- 319-65554-3; 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge input from partners, colleagues and consortium members of the PRINTEGER consortium as well as from members of the PRINTEGER expert advisory board and the PRINTEGER Policy Advisory Panel.

Both authors were involved in the PRINTEGER project ( https://printeger.eu ; grant agreement number 665926), supported by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

Availability of data and materials

Background materials for this paper are available at: https://printeger.eu

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

University of Bristol, Office G.04a - Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK

Ruud ter Meulen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed significantly to this paper. The corresponding author acted as first author. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hub Zwart .

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information.

Hub Zwart (1960) studied philosophy and psychology at Radboud University Nijmegen, worked as a research associate at the Centre for Bioethics in Maastricht (1988–1992) and defended his thesis in 1993. In 2000 he became full Professor of Philosophy at the Faculty of Science RU Nijmegen and in 2018 he was appointed as Dean of Erasmus School of Philosophy (Erasmus University Rotterdam). He published 15 books (4 in English) and > 100 academic papers. He is editor-in-chief of the Library for Ethics and Applied Philosophy (Springer) and of the journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy (Springer). In his research he develops a continental philosophical assessment of contemporary technoscience. Special attention is given to genres of the imagination (novels, plays, poetry) in research and education.

Ruud ter Meulen is particularly interested in justice in health care, the ethics of research, care of older people, and evidence-based medicine. I have directed several international research projects, including large-scale projects funded by the European Commission, and have published extensively in the field of bioethics. I am the Director of the Centre for Ethics in Medicine. I was educated in psychology (Catholic University of Nijmegen), an area in which I worked for some years, before moving into the field of bioethics. I was previously the Director of the Institute for Bioethics and Professor for Philosophy and Ethics at the University of Maastricht (1995–2005).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zwart, H., ter Meulen, R. Addressing research integrity challenges: from penalising individual perpetrators to fostering research ecosystem quality care. Life Sci Soc Policy 15 , 5 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-019-0093-6

Download citation

Received : 04 March 2019

Accepted : 06 May 2019

Published : 10 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-019-0093-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Research integrity
Scientific misconduct
Research performing Organisations
Research ethics

Life Sciences, Society and Policy

ISSN: 2195-7819

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

scientific misconduct and science ethics a case study based approach

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
J Microbiol Biol Educ
v.15(2); 2014 Dec

Cautionary Tales: Ethics and Case Studies in Science

Ethical concerns are normally avoided in science classrooms in spite of the fact that many of our discoveries impinge directly on personal and societal values. We should not leave the ethical problems for another day, but deal with them using realistic case studies that challenge students at their ethical core. In this article we illustrate how case studies can be used to teach STEM students principles of ethics.

INTRODUCTION

Americans consider morality the most essential part of self ( 11 ).

This may be true of other cultures as well. All societies have elaborate rules of conduct that are often codified into law. Some of these imperatives seem hardwired. Human infants younger than a year and a half will look longer at visual displays showing violations of social rules ( 2 ). It is part of our primate heritage; individuals are punished if they stray far from acceptable behavior. Capuchin monkeys will reject a reward if they think they are being treated unfairly; they have a clear sense of right and wrong which depends on the social situation ( 3 ). Aesop would agree—he penned many a story where animals behaved badly and paid the penalty.

If morality and ethics are so central to our beings, what are our responsibilities as STEM educators to pass along the standards of society? And if we accept this challenge, what is the best way to instruct our youthful comrades in their quest for knowledge? I argue in this article that we should accept this obligation and that case study teaching is an ideal way to deliver the message.

Case-study teaching has a long and honorable lineage ( 4 ). In academic circles we find it used 100 years ago in Harvard Law School. The instructor would bring in a true criminal or civil case that had been adjudicated and conduct a class discussion with future lawyers, asking them to justify the rationale for the final decision—challenging them every step of the way. This provided students a real-world problem as part of their training for a real world ahead. The method was soon adopted by the Harvard Business School and various schools across the country, where it is now the standard. Medical schools have their own version of the method called Problem-Based Learning. Again the idea was to use real world problems to train physicians, but in this case students work in small groups to analyze patient problems and provide diagnoses. The idea of using similar strategies to teach basic sciences to undergraduates is largely due to the efforts of faculty at the University of Delaware and the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, where there are hundreds of cases now published http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ .

Research has shown that minorities and women undergraduates respond well to cases ( 5 , 8 ). Among this group, cases have been shown to increase students’ understanding of science by encouraging them to make connections between science concepts and situations they may encounter in their lives ( 7 ). In addition, the case method promotes the internalization of learning and the development of analytical and decision-making skills, as well as proficiency in oral communication and teamwork ( 6 ). The method, moreover, is a flexible teaching tool. Cases can take many different forms and be taught in many different ways, ranging from the classical discussion method used in business and law schools, to the arguably strongest approaches, Problem-Based Learning and the Interrupted Case Method, with their emphasis on small-group, cooperative learning strategies ( 4 ).

The method seems ideal for teaching ethics to STEM students. We have plenty of precedents to guide us. We have legal ethics, business ethics, medical ethics, bioethics, geoethics, environmental ethics, teaching ethics, research ethics, engineering ethics, and so on. And, of course, there are religious ethics, with each faith describing canons of behavior not to be breached. Some of them are commonly held community values, such as “thou shalt not steal, lie, or cheat.” Others are more specific, such as the research tenet, “thou should replicate experiments.” While some of these “rules” are so entrenched that they are tantamount to absolutes, others are more fragile and malleable; they are subject to the changing moral landscape. Policies about smoking in public places have rapidly shifted ( 12 ). Decrees against interracial marriage, once laws of the land, are now anachronisms, as are statues against same-sex marriage ( 1 , 10 ). Such shifts in the moral topography offer wonderful opportunities for case studies as they challenge students at their central core of beliefs. There are hundreds of these case studies now available for teachers in repositories such as the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu ), where you can find moral dilemmas depicted in cases on evolution, genetic engineering, nutrition, euthanasia, cloning, and organic farming.

Case studies can be used to show students acceptable standards of behavior within a given profession—the do’s and don’ts—and the disastrous consequences that can occur if the rules are not obeyed. We learn of breaches of research ethics such as fraud, plagiarism, and sloppy book-keeping that ruin careers. We come to know cautionary tales, like Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who misrepresented the medical histories of 12 patients and claimed that his research results showed that vaccinations caused autism. He was eventually discredited and Britain stripped him of his medical license. Unfortunately, this sensational allegation has resulted in thousands of people refusing to have their children vaccinated, with a subsequent striking rise in measles.

In the past, these stories were neglected in the STEM classroom. Questions of right or wrong belonged elsewhere—in the home, in a philosophy class, in a church or tabernacle. In the science classroom we learned how to make petroleum, shoot rockets, synthesize drugs, manipulate DNA, and clone animals, not whether we should do so. Then came the Second World War. The academic community ran squarely into two striking examples of the deep entanglement of science and ethics. Suddenly, there was a public debate about whether Truman’s decision to drop the atom bomb on Japan with the loss of millions of lives was ethical. The sensational trials of generals and scientists implicated in the atrocities at the Nazi concentration camps came to light during the Nuremberg Trials and patient bills of rights were drafted. Today our IRB committees and other ethical bodies monitor our experimental protocols involving research into issues of genetic engineering, stem cell research, three-parent embryos, etc. So my argument is that we should not ignore these disputes in the science classroom; this is where the technology is coming from—the STEM laboratories and the people in charge.

This is especially true as scientists have gained technological expertise; we see more clearly than ever how science and technological decisions can wreak havoc in our lives. Think about science in the courtroom, the public policy decisions on health and insurance, the intrusion of listening devices and the tracking of our e-mails and phone calls, the science of warfare and the use of chemical weapons and drones, the use of chemical fertilizers and organic farming, and possible designer babies. Very little that we humans do is not filled with moral or ethical conundrums. No more should we eschew these quandaries in our classrooms. When we discuss DNA genomes, we should not only speak of how the technology can be used to track potential criminals, but also how it can lead to social and personal dilemmas when we identify parentage, plot evolutionary lineages, discover genetically modified food, and detect mutations that might lead to lethal disease and the loss of insurance. How better to deal with such contentious matters than to use case studies? Case studies are stories with an educational message, and as such they are perfect vehicles to integrate science with societal and policy issues. They are ideal because of their interdisciplinary nature. They deal with real issues that students will face in the future. And people love stories.

RESOURCES FOR ETHICS CASES

There are several STEM case repositories in the world; arguably the largest is the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, with over 500 case studies published over the past 25 years. Its greatest strength is in the fields of biology and health-related professions. Over 100 cases are catalogued as having ethical issues, ranging in suitability from middle school student classes to faculty seminars.

We seldom find pure instances of ethical transgressions, where issues of fraud, fabrication, or plagiarism are discussed. Rather, ethical issues are more apt to be a sidebar to the main thrust of a case concentrated on a health or environmental problem. And even in these cases, an individual may not be wrestling with problems involving societal standards. Instead, they grapple with whether it is prudent to make one decision versus another. It may be as simple as whether or not to have an operation or whether it is healthy to use drugs to lose weight.

Let me give you a flavor of the kinds of issues and cases that are available:

Personal dilemma

Often such cases involve medical issues, as we see in “A Right to Her Genes” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=316&id=316 ). In this true story, students examine the case of a woman, Michelle, with a family predisposition to cancer, who is considering genetic testing. The woman wishes to get some information to confirm this predisposition from a reluctant aunt so that she can better decide whether to remove her breasts and/or ovaries prophylactically. The aunt is illiterate and poor and had previously been estranged from the rest of the family. A genetic counselor is involved to help educate the aunt and hopefully obtain consent to get a DNA sample from her. Michelle must decide for herself what course of action she should take.

In “Spirituality and Health Care: A Request for Prayer” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=434&id=434 ), a fourth-year medical student making hospital rounds with an attending physician is asked by a family member of a patient to pray with her. The case allows medical students to explore issues related to patients’ religious beliefs as they think through how they might respond to different expectations and requests they may receive from patients and their families in their professional career.

Social ethics

These are cases where protagonists must decide how they will respond to evolving social standards. “SNPs and Snails and Puppy Dog Tails, and That’s What People Are Made Of” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=337&id=337 ) deals with questions of genome privacy. Students work together to research six lobbying groups’ views in this area and then present their insights before a mock meeting of a U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee voting on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. In working through the case, students learn about single nucleotide polymorphisms, common molecular biology techniques, and current legislation governing genome privacy.

“A Case of Cheating?” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=399&id=399 ) involves two international students who are accused of cheating at the end of the semester, and the teacher must decide how to handle the accusation so that all students see that justice is done. The case raises cultural questions in the context of the use of peer evaluation and cooperative learning strategies.

Medical ethics

Patient rights are a common concern in medical cases, whether they are the central issue of the case or a sidebar to teaching students about a particular disease syndrome. It is the central theme of the infamous “Bad Blood” case involving black men in Tuskegee, Alabama, in the 1920s ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=371&id=371 ). They had contracted syphilis, and public health officials studying the progress of the debilitating disease originally did not have an effective treatment. Twenty years later, the antibiotic penicillin was discovered, yet treatment was withheld to maintain the integrity of the study, whose purpose was to follow the progression of the disease. The study was immediately stopped when this transgression was made public.

Often there are competing concerns, as when a person is confronted with a decision where their personal morality may be at odds with the decrees of a society or institution. “The Plan: Ethics and Physician Assisted Suicide” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=436&id=436 ) is based on an article published in 1991 in the New England Journal of Medicine in which Dr. Timothy E. Quill described his care for a patient suffering from acute leukemia, including how he prescribed a lethal dose of barbiturates knowing that the woman intended to commit suicide. As a consequence of the article’s publication, a grand jury was convened to consider a charge of manslaughter against Dr. Quill. Students read the case and then, as part of a classroom-simulated trial, discuss physician-assisted suicide in terms of fundamental medical ethics principles.

Research ethics

Courses in experimental design are frequently part of psychology curricula. They seldom are part of the typical undergraduate programs in other STEM fields, although there is an excellent resource in the text Research Ethics ( 9 ). Apparently, students in STEM disciplines are supposed to absorb the proper canons of behavior by observation and osmosis.

“A Rush to Judgment” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=250&id=250 ) deals with a typical psychological experiment, where a faculty professor is inattentive to his student assistants, one of whom is misrepresenting the results of an experiment. Another student is confronted with a moral dilemma of whether to report this infraction at a potential cost to herself. Involved in the case is a consideration of proper research protocol when dealing with human participants: informed consent, freedom from harm, freedom from coercion, anonymity, and confidentiality. Students are referred to the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.

“How a Cancer Trial Ended in Betrayal” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=233&id=233 ) begins with a quote from a news item.

Birmingham, Alabama —After Bob Lange spent 8 weeks rubbing an experimental cream, BCX-34, from a prominent biotech company BioCryst on the fiery patches on his body, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham told him the drug was defeating the killer inside him. He felt grateful. “I believed it,” he recalls. “I actually thought I might be cured.” But it was a lie. The drug had no effect on Lange’s rare and potentially fatal skin cancer. And the two key people testing the drug knew it. Lange and 21 other patients were victims of fraud—a scheme made possible by the close tie between the university and the state’s most prominent biotech company. — The Baltimore Sun , June 24, 2001

The authors of this fascinating case state that the learning objectives are to learn the basics of scientific research in a clinical trial; to learn the principles of the scientific method; and to consider the ethical issues involved in clinical trials. Ethical potholes litter the road when universities travel with businesses, and millions of dollars and fame are at stake.

Socio-environmental ethics

Conflicting concerns are the norm when dealing with the environmental problems that beset our world. They not only involve scientific principles, but invariably policy and hurly burly politics as well.

“One Glass for Two People: A Case of Water Use Rights in the Eastern United States” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=603&id=603 ) focuses on the growing issue of water use. Approximately 1.3 million people in North and South Carolina depend on the Catawba-Wateree River for water and electricity. The river is also important for recreation and real estate development. To meet growing water demands, elected officials in Concord and Kannapolis, NC, petitioned their state government to approve an inter-basin transfer of 25 million gallons of water a day from the Catawba River. Other towns in North Carolina and South Carolina that are part of the Catawba-Wateree watershed fought this request for water transfer. For this exercise, students are divided into teams that take the role of different stakeholders trying to negotiate a settlement to this lawsuit. In the course of the debate, students address fundamental legal, ethical, and environmental questions about water use.

“Ecotourism: Who Benefits?” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=359&id=359 ) critically examines the costs and the benefits of visiting fragile, pristine, and relatively undisturbed natural areas. Although ecotourism has among its goals to provide funds for ecological conservation as well as economic benefit and empowerment to local communities, it can result in the exploitation of the natural resources (and communities) it seeks to protect. Students assess ecotourism in Costa Rica by considering the viewpoints of a displaced landowner, banana plantation worker, environmentalist, state official, U.S. trade representative, and national park employee.

Legal ethics

“The Slippery Slope of Litigating Geologic Hazards” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=385&id=385 ) is based on a lawsuit brought against the County of Los Angeles by homeowners suing over damage to their homes in the wake of the Portuguese Bend Landslide. It teaches students principles of landslide movement while illustrating the difficulties involved with litigation resulting from natural hazards. Students first read a newspaper article based on the actual events and then receive details about the geologic setting and landslide characteristics. They are then asked to evaluate the possible causes of the disaster and the responsibilities involved.

“The Sad But True Case of Earl Washington: DNA Analysis and the Criminal Justice System” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=725&id=725 ) recounts how, in 1983, Earl Washington “confessed” to a violent crime that he did not commit and was sentenced to death row. After spending 17 years in prison for something he did not do, Earl was released in 2001 after his innocence was proven through the use of modern DNA technology. The case guides students through the wrongful incarceration of Earl and explores the biological mechanisms behind DNA profiling and the ethical issues involved.

“Complexity in Conservation: The Legal and Ethical Case of a Bird-Eating Cat and its Human Killer” ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=664&id=664 ) presents the true story of a Texas man who killed a cat that was killing piping plovers, a type of endangered bird species, and was prosecuted for it. In Texas, it is a crime to kill an animal that “belongs to another,” and there was evidence that another person was feeding the cat, which otherwise appeared to be feral. Students engage in a role-playing activity as jurors; they discuss the case and collectively decide whether the cat killer should be acquitted or convicted. This role-playing coupled with follow-up discussions helps students examine and articulate their own views on a controversial environmental issue and gain a better understanding about the complex interdisciplinary nature of conservation science and practice.

There are plenty of ethical issues in every science classroom to discuss; they are not in short supply. They are hovering around every scientific study that reaches the public eye. Pick any news item with science as its theme and there will be the central question that is often not spoken: should we be doing this research at all, not only because of its economic cost, but because of the social, environmental, or health costs? Surely this should be always a pivotal question in the minds of all citizens. It is sometimes asserted that scientific discovery cannot or should not be stopped—that all knowledge is good. But even if we accept that premise, it seems worthwhile to consider the consequences of our actions. Where else to start than in our classrooms?

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant Nos. DUE-0341279, DUE-0618570, DUE-0920264, and DUE-1323355. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach

Published: September 2006
Volume 12 , pages 533–541, ( 2006 )

Cite this article

Luca Consoli PhD 1

1129 Accesses

17 Citations

Explore all metrics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

The Structure of Scientific Fraud: The Relationship Between Paradigms and Misconduct

Ethical Ambiguity in Science

David R. Johnson & Elaine Howard Ecklund

Of Fakes and Frauds: Can Scientific “Hoaxes” Be a Legitimate Tool of Inquiry?

Literature on this topic is vast. For a case study of how media influence the public perception of science, see Gregory J. (2003) The popularization and excommunication of Fred Hoyle’s ‘life-from-space’ theory. Public Understanding of Science 12 : 25–46. For a sociological study of the impact of technology on society and the public, an interesting perspective is offered by Ellul, J. (1967) The technological society . USA: Random House. See also Boulter D. (1999) Public perception of science and associated general issues for the scientist. Phytochemistry 50 : 1–7; B.L. Cohen, B.L. (1998) Public perception versus results of scientific risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System. Safety 59 : 101–105.

Article Google Scholar

Lafollette, M. (1992) Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Google Scholar

Drenth, P.J.D. (1999) Scientists at fault: causes and consequences of misconduct in science, in: European science and scientists between freedom and responsibility . Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community.

M. Beasley et al. (2002) Report of the investigation committee on the possibility of scientific misconduct in the work of Hendrik Schön and coauthors. Lucent Technologies. Available online at the URL: http://www.lucent.com/news_events/researchreview.html. We will refer for convenience to this document from now on as “Report”.

Service, R.F. (2002) Winning Streak Brought Awe, And Then Doubt. Science 297 : 34–37.

Goss Levi, B. (2002) Bell Labs Convenes Committee to Investigate Questions of Scientific Misconduct. Physics Today .

Brumfield, G. (2002) Misconduct Finding at Bell Labs Shakes Physics Community. Nature 419 : 419–421

Chang, K. (09-26-2002) Panel Says Bell Labs Scientist Faked Discoveries”, New York Times .

Kolata, G. (09-29-2002) Assigning Blame is Fraud is found. New York Times .

Nature 429, 692 (17 June 2004); 429 , 789 (24 June 2004).

Electronic document, available atURL: http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, URL: http://m-w.com.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , University of Chicago Press, USA.

Recommendations of the Commission on Professional Self Regulation in Science , Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Available at URL: http://www.dfg.de.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Science and Society, Department of Philosophy, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (ISIS), Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1, 6525 ED, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Luca Consoli PhD ( Assistant Professor )

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Consoli PhD .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Consoli, L. Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach. SCI ENG ETHICS 12 , 533–541 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6

Download citation

Received : 15 March 2004

Revised : 19 January 2006

Accepted : 11 May 2006

Issue Date : September 2006

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

science ethics
methodology
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Topics: Research Misconduct

A guide that provides information and resources on teaching responsible conduct of research that focuses on the topic of research misconduct. Part of the Resources for Research Ethics Education collection.

What is Research Ethics

Why Teach Research Ethics

Animal Subjects

Biosecurity

Collaboration

Conflicts of Interest

Data Management

Human Subjects

Peer Review

Publication

Research Misconduct

Social Responsibility

Stem Cell Research

Whistleblowing

Descriptions of educational settings , including in the classroom, and in research contexts.

Case Studies

Other Discussion Tools

Information about the history and authors of the Resources for Research Ethics Collection

Research misconduct is defined as (Code of Federal Regulations: 42 CFR Part 93):

Complexity of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct is complex (DuBois et al., 2013):

Specifics of misconduct as well as perceptions can vary greatly from case to case. The heterogeneous nature of research misconduct makes it difficult to capture the full essence of the act with a simple explanation.

Personality traits Stress Feelings of unfairness ... and any of many other reasons

Research Misconduct Prevention

Self-policing with Quality Research Practices Good science practices minimize the risk of misconduct. For example:

Strict adherence to the scientific method
Clear, detailed recordkeeping
Meaningful and clear delineation of collaboration
Shared understanding of authorship roles and responsibilities
Attentive mentoring for newer members of the research environment
Encouragement and support for asking questions and open discussion

Responding to Research Misconduct

Obligations to Act

Scientists do not all agree on if, when, and how to report misconduct. This disagreement is even greater between scientists and administrators (Wenger et al., 1999).
An allegation of research misconduct is one of the most serious charges that can be made against a scientist. Therefore, it is essential that a charge be sustained only if justified by documentation and other relevant evidence.
Whether one is making the allegation or being accused of misconduct, clear documentation provides the best chance for a fair and timely resolution .

Questionable Research Misconduct

Some aspects of conduct are too new or poorly defined to allow for a simple answer about what is appropriate. Other behaviors may stem simply from bad manners, honest errors, or differences of opinion, which may be questionable without being research misconduct.
Impressions should be validated before making serious charges, and many apparent problems can be resolved by other means.

Dispute resolution

Many concerns are best addressed by means other than alleging research misconduct. Some institutions have formal mechanisms in place for conflict resolution, mediation, or arbitration; absent such mechanisms, finding a solution to a dispute may require some creativity.

Conflict resolution : Often, good conflict resolution skills may be helpful or even sufficient. Deal with the problem as early as possible. Begin by defining points of agreement and then work on areas of disagreement. Emphasize the problem rather than the person. Give and ask for clear communication about what is most important to each of the interested parties.
Mediation : A respected third party can sometimes help with mediating a dispute. The goal is to clarify issues in a way that permits the best possible agreement or compromise.
Arbitration : When other avenues of communication have failed, then parties to a dispute might be convinced to put their cases before a mutually agreeable arbitrator for review and a binding decision.

Public Allegations

The pace of the process for dealing with alleged misconduct can be frustrating. In such circumstances, it can be tempting to discuss the case publicly. However, placing a complex, unresolved issue into the public arena can be harmful to those directly involved and the scientific community as a whole.
Publicity may also compromise the integrity of an ongoing inquiry and the privacy of parties to the investigation. Moreover, an attempt to circumvent the institutional process may prejudice those charged with reviewing the allegation.

Science is predicated on trust

Without confidence in the integrity of their peers, scientists would lack a foundation on which to build new work.

Self-regulation

Self-regulation and self-policing operate to ensure the legitimacy of research , and necessitate that scientists foster an environment in which responsible research is explicitly discussed and encouraged . In part, this means that scientists should be familiar with definitions of research misconduct and procedures for dealing with it , regardless of whether they will ever be party to allegations.

How frequently does research misconduct occur?

There are some indications that research misconduct occurs only rarely, although questionable research practices may be common (e.g., Kalichman and Friedman, 1992; Martinson et al., 2006). However, there are many barriers to accurately quantifying the extent of research misconduct; for example, cases may go unreported and institutions may be biased against finding misconduct. The actual rate of research misconduct could be as low as 1 in 100,000 or as high as 1 in 100 (Steneck, 2000; Steneck, 2006). Yet, in the past 25 years, many serious allegations of misconduct have been widely publicized, and some of those were borne out by subsequent investigation.

Examples of Research Misconduct

Hwang Woo-suk’s Stem Cell Research (Sang-Hun, 2009)

In 2006, Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk was found to have fabricated a series of experiments in stem cell research. He reported creating embryonic stem cells through cloning in two Science journal articles. In addition to research misconduct, Hwang was charged with embezzlement and bioethics violations.

Bengü Sezen’s Research Misconduct (Marcus, 2010)

Bengü Sezen, a chemistry researcher at Columbia University, is notorious for being one of the worst cases of research misconduct in the chemistry community. Sezen perpetrated a massive, sustained effort to manipulate and falsify research data. Even going to the extent of creating fictitious people and organizations to back up her data. The Office of Research Integrity found Sezen guilty of 21 counts of research misconduct.

Regulations and Guidelines

Federal definition of research misconduct.

A government-wide definition of Research Misconduct was proposed by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP, 2000) and is now covered in the Code of Federal Regulations for the Public Health Service (PHS, 2006), the National Science Foundation (NSF, 2006), and other agencies as well. In all cases, research misconduct is essentially defined as: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results."

Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification is manipulating research material, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Minimally, for something to count as research misconduct, it must be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly , and there must be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. Not all instances of misbehavior or questionable conduct are covered under these policies, but for those practices that are covered, there are explicit steps that must be taken in the event of an allegation of misconduct.

Responsibilities

Shared responsibilities for addressing research misconduct

Federal agencies have ultimate oversight authority for Federally-funded research
Research institutions bear primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the phases required once research misconduct has been reported.

Phases of Response to Allegation of Research Misconduct

Inquiry: assessment of whether the allegation has substance and if an investigation is warranted
Investigation: formal development of a factual record, and examination of that record leading to the dismissal of the case or to a recommendation for a finding of research misconduct or other appropriate remedies
Adjudication: recommendations are reviewed and appropriate corrective actions determined

Discussion Questions

Define fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.
Give at least three examples of misconduct by researchers that would not meet the existing definitions of research misconduct. In your institution, what can be done about these types of misconduct?
In your institution, what formal procedures or mechanisms (e.g., ombudsman, conflict resolution, arbitration, mediation) are available to help resolve disputes or questions about the responsible practice of science?
Outline the basic steps to be followed in your institution for responding to an allegation of research misconduct.
If you have direct evidence that someone in your institution has committed research misconduct, then to whom and how should such an allegation be made?
If you were accused of having fabricated data that you had produced, how could you demonstrate that you really did obtain the results you reported?

Case Study 1

A graduate student, working on a project that involves extensive DNA sequencing, provides his mentor with a computer-generated sequence of a gene. The student tells his mentor that the sequence determination has involved complete analysis of both strands of the DNA molecule. Over the next several months, it is determined that not all of the sequence data reflects analysis of both DNA strands. Indeed, follow-up work by a postdoctoral in the laboratory reveals several mistakes in the sequence. The student in question admits to misleading his mentor and, following appropriate investigation, is convicted of scientific misconduct and dismissed from the graduate program. The mentor realizes that the student presented some of the erroneous data at a regional scientific meeting. Proceedings of the meeting were not published but abstracts of all of the works presented were distributed to approximately 100 meeting participants. In addition, the student, with the mentor's permission, sent the sequence by electronic mail to three other laboratories. What, if any, responsibility does the faculty mentor have with regard to disclosing the above developments? What, if anything should the mentor do about the prematurely released data? Under these circumstances, what is the potential for harm coming from this incident of scientific fraud? Who might be harmed?

Case Study 2

You are an editor for the Journal of Novel Diagnostics. You recently handled a manuscript that compared two new diagnostic tests for the detection of a genetic defect. Test 1 is marketed by Genetix, Inc., and test 2 is marketed by Probes Unlimited. The manuscript concludes that test 1 is superior in terms of reliability and accuracy. Following peer review and minor revision, you accept the paper and it appears in print. Shortly after publication, you receive a letter from the Vice President for Research at Probes Unlimited. She claims that examination of the methods section of the paper reveals that the authors used test 2 in a manner that significantly deviates from the instructions provided by Probes Unlimited. Moreover, she claims that the senior author on the paper has previously received research grants from Genetix, Inc. Is this "sloppy science" or scientific fraud. What course of action do you take?

Case Study 3

Dr. Hickory submits a grant application to a federal funding agency. When he receives the summary statement review of the grant application, he finds that it has been criticized on several grounds and that it has received a score that will prevent the application from being funded. He decides to do more experiments to generate preliminary information and indefinitely postpones resubmitting the grant application. Approximately 18 months later, Dr. Hickory is asked to serve as an ad hoc reviewer for a research grant submitted to a private foundation. The topical area of the grant is closely aligned with Dr. Hickory's area of expertise. It turns out that the principal investigator of this application, Dr. Poplar, was a member of the panel that previously reviewed Hickory's above-referenced grant. In reading the introductory section of the grant application, Dr. Hickory realizes that the structure and content of this section is strikingly similar to his previously submitted unfunded grant application. In fact there are several areas of the introduction where wording is virtually identical to his initial grant application. Moreover, several of the experiments proposed in the application to the private foundation are quite similar (but not identical) to the ones he had previously proposed. Dr. Hickory wonders what he can and should do about this situation. He comes to you for advice. What advice do you give him?

OEC Falsification, Fabrication, Plagiarism & Cheating Bibliography A bibliography of websites, articles, guidelines, and books looking at different aspects of research misconduct.

Cited Resources

DuBois JM, Anderson EE, Chibnall J, Carroll K, Gibb T, Ogbuka C, Rubbelke T (2013): Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing. Accountability in Research 20:320–338. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3805450
Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ (1992): A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67:769-775.
Marcus A (2010): ORI comes down (hard) on Bengu Sezen, Columbia chemist accused of fraud. Retraction Watch. http://retractionwatch.com/2010/12/01/ori-comes-down-hard-on-bengu-sezen-columbia-chemist-accused-of-fraud
Martinson BC, Anderson MS, Crain AL, de Vries R (2006): Scientists' Perceptions of Organizational Justice and Self-Reported Misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1:51-66
NSF (2005): Sec. 689.1 Definitions. Part 689-- Research Misconduct. Subpart A—General. Chapter VI--National Science Foundation. Title 45--Public Welfare. 45CFR689.1(a). http://www.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf
OSTP (2000): Federal Policy on Research Misconduct: Notification of Final Policy. Federal Register December 6, 2000 65(235):76260-76264. http://ori.hhs.gov/policies/fed_research_misconduct.shtml
PHS (2005): Sec. 93.103 Research misconduct. Part 93-- Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct. Subpart A—General. Chapter I--Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. Title 42--Public Health. 42CFR93.103. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/42cfr93_05.html
Sang-Hun C (2009): Disgraced cloning expert convicted in South Korea. Asia Pacific, New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/world/asia/27clone.html
Steneck N (2000): Assessing the integrity of publicly funded research: A background report for the November 2000 ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity. http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/proceedings_rri.pdf
Steneck N (2006): Fostering Integrity in Research: Definitions, Current Knowledge, and Future Directions. Science and Engineering Ethics 12:53-74.
Wenger NS, Korenman SG, Berk R, Honghu L (1999): Reporting unethical research behavior. Evaluation Review 23:553-570.

The Resources for Research Ethics Education site was originally developed and maintained by Dr. Michael Kalichman, Director of the Research Ethics Program at the University of California San Diego. The site was transferred to the Online Ethics Center in 2021 with the permission of the author.

Related Resources

Submit Content to the OEC Donate

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No. 2055332. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Your browser is not supported

Sorry but it looks as if your browser is out of date. To get the best experience using our site we recommend that you upgrade or switch browsers.

Find a solution

Skip to main content
Skip to navigation

Back to parent navigation item
Collections
Sustainability in chemistry
Simple rules
Teacher well-being hub
Women in chemistry
Global science
Escape room activities
Decolonising chemistry teaching
Teaching science skills
Post-lockdown teaching support
Get the print issue
RSC Education

Three cartoons: a female student thinking about concentration, a male student in a wheelchair reading Frankenstein and a female student wearing a headscarf and safety goggles heating a test tube on a bunsen burner. All are wearing school uniform.

More from navigation items

The ethical impact of science on society

Teach your students to understand the crucial role ethics plays in science by using case studies and active engagement

Ethics is generally understood to mean a set of moral values and principles. But, it is important to clarify that, while morals refers to aspects of human action, ethics refers to professional behaviour.

A student in a wheelchair reading Frankenstein while thinking about gene editing

From fact to fiction, there are plenty of ethical scientific dilemmas to engage your students

Scientific ethics are the standards of conduct for scientists in their professional endeavours. These include adherence to principles and practices of:

valid scientific experimentation,
peer review, and
communication of results to the public.

Unethical behaviour and scientific misconduct include:

falsification: the misrepresentation of results,
fabrication: reporting on work never performed, and
plagiarism: taking the writings or ideas of another and representing them as your own.

Scientific ethics are the standards of conduct for scientists in their professional endeavours. These include adherence to principles and practices of valid scientific experimentation, education, peer review and communication of results to the public.

Unethical behaviour and scientific misconduct include falsification: the misrepresentation of results; fabrication: reporting on work never performed; and plagiarism: taking the writings or ideas of another and representing them as your own.

Example pages from teacher notes, student worksheet and character cards that make up this resource

Download this

Structured practice debate, for age range 11–14.

Use the example of nanotechnology in socks to introduce ethics and society to your learners.

Download the teacher notes as MS Word or pdf , character cards as PowerPoint or pdf and student sheet as MS Word or pdf.

Use the example of nanotechnology in socks to introduce ethics and society to your learners.

Download the resources from the Education in Chemistry website: rsc.li/3ledLP3

Active engagement

I engage students in activities rather than providing a list of do’s and don’ts. Students learn through getting involved in group discussions of case studies and reasoning through possible actions and outcomes for each case.

The key to choosing scenarios for discussion is to begin with characters and situations that students can identify with. The characters can have exaggerated behaviour yet must respond to the situation in a realistic manner. These cases can serve as an introduction to critical thinking, moral problem-solving and allow students to learn conventions or rules for appropriate conduct.

Students Mohamed, Brandon and Lisa are lab partners in their chemistry class.

Yesterday, Lisa was absent. This required Mohamed and Brandon to work diligently to complete the experiment so they could hand in the lab report the next day.

Today, Lisa has returned to school after being ill. She meets her lab partners on the way into school and asks them for the data from yesterday’s experiment so she can write it up and hand it in with theirs.

The question posed to students following presentation of this scenario is, ‘Should Mohamed and Brandon let Lisa copy their data?’. Invariably, students choose sides, and it is relatively easy to spark debate.

Some students feel that Mohamed and Brandon should not share the data, while others suggest it is the interpretation of the data that will count in the course, not the actual data. Frequently students contend that it does not matter since it is just a lab report.

If all students choose the same interpretation, you can introduce additional information. If, for example, all students think that the data should be shared, then you can place doubt in their minds by suggesting that Lisa may not have been ill, but was actually skipping school.

The point of this exercise is to get students to think about what they consider appropriate behaviour and why. Students may express the feeling that the scenario presents a trivial issue of no ethical importance. Ask them to consider who will be affected by the situation, and when they believe sharing data becomes an ethical issue and why.

Evaluate risks in practical science and the wider societal context, including perception of risk in relation to data and consequences. This approach provides the opportunity to discuss ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers without dictating a specific action.

The ethics of science in society

Ethics provides great scope for debate in schools, whether stimulated by fiction, such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or case studies, such as the thalidomide tragedy.

Collaborate with colleagues teaching subjects such as English literature, media, citizenship and PSHE to help with curriculum time pressures. In geography, the impact of agriculture on soil could draw on CRISPR crops or the use of fertilisers. Using Fritz Haber’s work on ammonia and chlorine gas would also create links with history.

The growth of research and technological proficiency offer new opportunities alongside more complex societal challenges on a global scale. Although science is based on trust, it is a social enterprise, which means that people and their personal agendas are involved. It is vital to understand the importance of teaching ethics as part of our science curriculum.

The word skills with a molecule over the i and a measure on an l. Inside a circle.

This article is part of our Teaching science skills series, bringing together strategies and classroom activities to help your learners develop essential scientific skills, from literacy to risk assessment and more.

More from Naomi Hennah

Toxic socks: nanotechnology, ethics and society | 11–14 years

A step by step chemistry practical with dissolution, filtration and crystallization

Make the most of practical work

An image showing the pages available in the download with leaves in the shape of a 15 in the foreground.

Reciprocal reading task: agriculture and ammonia | 14–16 years

Society and ethics

A cartoon of a young person in a shopping trolley wearing an astronaut's helmet rolling towards a lightbulb

Why we should ditch working scientifically

2024-04-12T06:00:00Z By Ben Rogers

Explore a new approach to this this national curriculum strand, grounded in contemporary cognitive science

Two firefighters tackling a blaze with a hose. They are wearing helmets and protective clothing.

Firefighting chemistry

2023-08-21T07:05:00Z By Nina Notman

From polymers to inorganic compounds, discover the remarkable science behind fighting fires

A small green inchworm caterpillar walking on a large red fruit

Alternatives to agrochemicals

2023-07-03T07:00:00Z By Emma Davies

Find out how developments in pest control will secure future food production

1 Reader's comment

Only registered users can comment on this article., more from ideas.

A female engineer inspects a turbine in a nuclear power plant

Fuel curiosity in science careers

2024-04-17T05:02:00Z By Mustafa Mahmoud

Help foster the next generation of scientists by linking teaching topics to real-world events and career pathways

A teacher interacting with a robot on a screen who has written a question given four optional answers about the standard formula of alkanes

Use AI to successfully assess students’ understanding

2024-03-20T05:00:00Z By David Paterson

Discover how to quickly and effectively generate multiple choice questions on key chemistry topics

5 ways to successfully teach structure and bonding at 14–16

2024-03-06T10:33:00Z By Kristy Turner

Strengthen students’ grasp of the abstract so they master this tricky topic and effectively tackle exam questions

Contributors
Print issue
Email alerts

Site powered by Webvision Cloud

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach

The Schön misconduct case has been widely publicized in the media and has sparked intense discussions within and outside the scientific community about general issues of science ethics. This paper analyses the Report of the official Committee charged with the investigation in order to show that what at first seems to be a quite uncontroversial case, turns out to be an accumulation of many interesting and non-trivial questions (of both ethical and philosophical interest). In particular, the paper intends to show that daily scientific practices are structurally permeated by chronic problems; this has serious consequences for how practicing scientists assess their work in general, and scientific misconduct in particular. A philosophical approach is proposed that sees scientific method and scientific ethics as inextricably interwoven. Furthermore, the paper intends to show that the definition of coauthorship that the members of the Committee use, although perhaps clear in theory, proves highly problematic in practice and raises more questions that it answers. A final plea is made for a more self-reflecting attitude of scientists as far as the moral and methodological profile of science is concerned as a key element for improving not only their scientific achievements, but also their assessment of problematic cases.

Related Papers

Daryl Chubin

Olga Savvina

The paper analyses the types of scientific misconduct and tries to evaluate the prevalence of these practices, based on statistics and studies in social science. It is concluded that significant scientific misconduct like fabrication, falsification and text plagiarism are not spread and occur quite rare. At the same time the real problem of scientific ethics is "grey area" or prevalence of "grey methods" in science like over interpretation of results, selective reporting, study weaknesses are not described, carelessness and incompetence and others. Despite it we have no moral rights to blame scientists using "grey methods". The author formulates the principles of the modern scientists which contain rejection of practicing fabrication, falsification and plagiarism; implementation the limitations of scientific activity and attempts to avoid "grey methods" in science. The paper also emphasizes the significance of collaboration of honest scientists.

Marijke Van Buggenhout

This deliverable DIII.1.2 is part of work package 3 in which indicators are gathered on the extent of misconduct and how institutions respond to breaches of scientific integrity. As a part of the empirical phase in PRINTEGER it contributes to our analysis of what policies and organizational responses are most likely to engender a culture of integrity in research organisations. The exploration of the incidence of misconduct is combined with the institutional response, since it is partly through this response that misconduct is made explicit or even defined. This deliverable reflects on one of the key questions in the scientific integrity debate; what is the incidence or extent of misconduct in science? This is one of the questions raised many years ago, but a clear-cut answer is not available and may be even impossible to formulate. What we know about misconduct in science has for the largest part been derived from self-report studies and rough estimations in statistics of universities, control agencies or funding bodies. Therefore, it remains difficult to conclude whether or not these estimations are correct, significant and reliable. In this deliverable, we report about our attempt to gather empirical data on breaches of integrity that have ended up in official administrative or institutional (academic) files e.g. cases which are visible in administrative procedures of research and research funding institutions or bodies for investigating misconduct cases. With this report, we do not pretend to have found a clear answer to the incidence question. We do however aim to make visible the procedural chain that is followed when a case of misconduct comes to the surface. Besides a ‘mapping’ exercise, we aim at discussing theoretical and methodological issues when it comes to gathering data relying upon official procedures. Registration practices differ greatly from one research institution to another, from one country to another. This makes comparative research in general (and between the countries involved in this deliverable) very difficult if not impossible. However, we argue that issues concerning denunciation, discovery and registration practices, whistle blowing, transparency, gaining access, confidentiality, reputational bias etc. are precisely worth a close scrutiny and must be discussed when doing research on the prevalence of misconduct in science in a European context. Indeed, in our view these aspects of the incidence question are not merely technical (or methodological) but they reveal a lot about the nature of scientific misconduct and about how scientific integrity and misconduct are intimately intertwined with daily scientific and academic practices and organization. They are mutually constitutive. Hence, there may be significant differences between disciplinary scientific practices as well as between national science systems (countries). It reveals a lot about how alleged breaches of integrity and misconduct are experienced, detected, reported, processed, registered and reacted upon. Starting from a state of the art of what has been measured in previous research, we focused on the biases that have to be taken into account when measuring the extent and incidence of misconduct. Besides a discussion on issues related to the use of official statistics, self-report studies and reputational biases we reflect on the conceptual issues embedded in the process of registration and their consequences for registering practices in administrative procedures. In a next step, we discuss the separate methodologies of the partners involved in this deliverable and the results that were obtained. This report wraps up with a concluding part, reflecting on future directions for research on this topic and the data sources that are useful to measure misconduct in science.

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

Martin Bridgstock

ISBE Newsletter

Bob Montgomerie

Frederick Green

Science, in particular physics, is a collective enterprise; a fruit of the exquisitely social nature of human living. So it is inevitable to encounter ethical issues in natural science, since the contest of differing interests and views is perennial in its practice, indeed essential to its momentum. The crucial ethical question always hangs in the air: How is the truth best served? This is a very limited imperative for science to follow, excluding as it does most questions of meaning and valuation. For example, in science one does not normally ask: Why is the truth to be served? As one type of ethical “bound” in science, these forgone questions are properly analysed within moral philosophy. A more pragmatic bound is the degree to which ethics can persist as a reliable guide in a milieu wherein we all fall short at some time, and where the pressures of individual professional survival have become intense. In this paper we describe some ethical aspects of our own discipline of science: their cultural context and the bounds which they delineate for themselves, sometimes in transgression. We argue that the minimalist ethic espoused in science, namely loyalty to truth, is a bellwether for the much wider, more problematic, and more vital consequences of ethics – and its failure – in human relationships at large.

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.

Journal of Threatened Taxa

Neelesh Dahanukar

Science and Engineering Ethics

Carl Mitcham

RELATED PAPERS

Fisioterapia Brasil

Jean Louis Peytavin

Revista Teoria e Evidência Econômica

Valquiria Conte

Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia

Cindy Yonafri

Carlo Ungarelli

Jennifer Feitosa

Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Agama Islam

International Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics

Rakesh Kumawat

European Heart Journal

Nazzareno Galiè

Terrorism and Political Violence

Dipak Gupta

Journal of Entrepreneurship Education

Adegbuyi Omotayo

International Journal of Food Science & Technology

Youn-Young Shim

Marine Biodiversity Records

Randall Kosaki

Ciência em Conflitos: ciência, desinformação e crise democrática

Melina Meimaridis

Mohammad Alnajjar

Meylin Martinez

JCI Insight

changzheng lu

Wagner Weinert

Maria Brandimonte

Litteraria Copernicana

Mirosław Tyl

Revista Medica Sinergia

Christopher Guerrero Hines

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH

Anuradha Rao

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

Helena Solari

Maissa Rayyan

The Journal of Physiology

Near Eastern Archaeology

Stefan Münger

scientific misconduct and science ethics a case study based approach

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: A case study based approach

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Search life-sciences literature (43,931,735 articles, preprints and more)

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach.

Abstract

References

Goss Levi, B. (2002) Bell Labs Convenes Committee to Investigate Questions of Scientific Misconduct. Physics Today.

Chang, K. (09-26-2002) Panel Says Bell Labs Scientist Faked Discoveries”, New York Times.

Citations & impact

Making researchers responsible: attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct.

Addressing research integrity challenges: from penalising individual perpetrators to fostering research ecosystem quality care.

When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media.

Scientific Ethics: A New Approach.

Similar Articles

Science ethics education part II: changes in attitude toward scientific fraud among medical researchers after a short course in science ethics.

Overview: underserved areas of education in the responsible conduct of research: authorship.

Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies?

Ethical publishing: the innocent author's guide to avoiding misconduct.

The integrity of science - lost in translation?

Addressing research integrity challenges: from penalising individual perpetrators to fostering research ecosystem quality care

Introduction

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and materials

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Life Sciences, Society and Policy

Cautionary Tales: Ethics and Case Studies in Science

INTRODUCTION

RESOURCES FOR ETHICS CASES

Personal dilemma

Social ethics

Medical ethics

Research ethics

Socio-environmental ethics

Legal ethics

Acknowledgments

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

The Structure of Scientific Fraud: The Relationship Between Paradigms and Misconduct

Ethical Ambiguity in Science

Of Fakes and Frauds: Can Scientific “Hoaxes” Be a Legitimate Tool of Inquiry?

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Site Search

Topics: Research Misconduct

Complexity of Research Misconduct

Research Misconduct Prevention

Responding to Research Misconduct

Science is predicated on trust

Self-regulation

How frequently does research misconduct occur?

Examples of Research Misconduct

Regulations and Guidelines

Responsibilities

Discussion Questions

Case Study 1

Case Study 2

Case Study 3

Cited Resources

Related Resources

Your browser is not supported

The ethical impact of science on society

Download this

Active engagement

Recommended reading and resources