Disorderly Ethics: The Implications of Misconduct in Scientific Publishing Professional integrity

The example of unethical or questionable science behavior I have decided to discuss involves informed consent. An article written in the Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research describes informed consent as the process by which individuals are advised of the different facets of research, including risks, that they will be participating in that allows them to make a voluntary and informed decision as to their willingness to engage in the procedure.

Science plays an integral role in the development and findings of many great things that we can benefit from. Integrity along with a specific set of moral standards must always be followed in order to ensure the end result enables a healthy environment for all whom wish to benefit from such studies. Integrity must always play and be the most essential key role in scientific research. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1831) and Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) one is able to conclude that integrity must be maintained while conducting scientific research as a lack of can result in the creation of monsters.

For this discussion, the infamous case of scientific misconduct that I chose is about Andrew Wakefield’s article on linking MMR vaccine to autism. Wakefield is a former doctor and researcher who was found guilty for falsifying data in order to mislead the public that MMR vaccines correlate with autism. For example, Wakefield purposely changed the medical entries of his participants to support his study that MMR vaccines will induce autism. He included a small group of participants, approximately 12 children, to join his study. However, these children were suggested by biased organizations, who attempted to discourage the public from getting MMR vaccines. Therefore, his study did not give an overall unbiased sample to show that his experiment was reliable. They were

Three principles relevant to ethical research are the respect for persons, beneficence, and the principle of justice (“Belmont Report,” 2016). Respect for persons includes two ethical concepts. Firstly, subjects should be treated with respect for their autonomy, meaning that the subject has the ability to make decisions for themselves. Secondly, that persons without autonomy are entitled to protection. To treat people in an ethical manner you must not only respect their decisions, but you must put forth an effort to secure the subjects well-being. The term “beneficence” is the act of doing good or charity. In the Belmont Report it is an obligation to show beneficence towards subjects of research. In order to be beneficent, one must not intentionally harm subjects and one must maximize the possible benefits while minimizing the possible risks. Who should receive the benefits of research and who should have to face the risks? This is a matter of justice, or what is equal and fair. The principle of beneficence often occupies a well-defined justifying

Much of the discussion surrounding Schön’s scandal within Cassuto’s paper was centered on disappointment with the scientific community and the process that allowed Schön to gain his fame with falsified research results, in addition to disappointment with Schön for his fraudulence. Failures within the former are perhaps more severe than the transgressions of the latter, however, as a lack of competency within the review process can afford for the perpetuation of fraud, while Schön’s disregard for adequately performed science is, in and of itself, an isolated case. This process, peer review, is supposed “to weed out substandard work,” (Cassuto, 232) and—perhaps just as, or even more, importantly—it “governs external funding,” (Cassuto, 232). As peer review determines what is

The ethical issue or violation that can be drawn in this journal is Bias. First, what is bias? Bias is a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly, or to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook (merriam-webster.com, 2015). In research, Bias is when a “systematic-error” occurs that is being introduced in the study that contributes in favorable outcome over others in favor to the researcher, it can occurs in any phase of the study from selecting the topic, to selecting methodology, sample as well as data analysis and publication (Panucci& Wilkins, 2010). According to the column “Beware of the Creeping Cracks of Bias”, bias in

Confirmation bias has some truly terrifying implications. It can make people completely bind to the facts around them. In particular, this has negative implications for any study preformed, and for science in general. When preforming any kind of study, it is essential that you go in with no expectation for what you are going to find. I realize that this is somewhat impossible, but in order to have the best study that you can, it is imperative that you come as close as possible. When you go in thinking that you will find something, you will undoubtedly find some evidence that suggest you are right. If you only focus on that it is possible that you will disregard something that could benefit society. Peoples’ disposition to having confirmation bias is a huge setback to

As technology and science are continually progressing there are always bioethical questions that appear ranging from science related questions to morality based questions. One question that stands out is “Should scientists be held to some standard of integrity and honesty?” This is widely debated question that has been around for a while now after a lot of public controversy over past research experiments that call out the moral issues about science. People are concerned about the honesty about science of how research will be shown to society and how scientists will perform their research without being corrupt. Most of the research that scientists do is to fully understand the fundamental questions of biology and also help

In spite of this, there is a chance that purposeful sampling can also produce biased results – there is a “high probability of researcher bias, as each sample is based entirely on the judgement of the researcher in question, who generally is trying to prove a specific point (their hypothesis). For this reason, researchers need to strive to make decisions based on accepted criteria, not on what will best support their theory.” Source: (Wilkinson, B. –

Academic integrity is the moral code or ethical policy of academia. This includes values such as avoidance of cheating or plagiarism; maintenance of academic standards; honesty and rigor in research and academic publishing (Wikipedia). Academic integrity reminds students to work honestly without any type of cheating. Plagiarism is one way that breaks academic integrity. Plagiarism is when you take someone’s else’s work or idea without giving them credit or taking it and claiming it as your own. There are several examples of plagiarism. First, you copy down someone else’s work and submit that work as your own. Another example, is that you use information from an online

Freedman (2010) introduces an incredibly intelligent scientist named John Ioannidis. The author argues with Ioannidis findings that 90% of published medical information is false, biased and overblown (Para 5). Today’s obsession of finding fame and winning big money has gone too far and lead to unreliable medical information and research (Para 6). Ioannidis devoted much time in effort in studying the new evidence-based medicine and discovered that most findings were disproved (Para 8). For example, many antidepressants have found to work exactly the same way as a placebo (Para 8). Flaws are found in even the finest research experiments (Para 9). In order to receive funding and have their work published in highly respected journals, many researchers perform biased experiments in order to obtain particular results (Para

As most students mentioned in blackboard, it is not acceptable that a person refers to another person’s work for the purpose of using part or whole of the information in his/her assignment without an appropriate reference because it is against academic integrity. This case is an example of a serious breach. It could be level 2 or 3 plagiarism depending on the severity of the infringement. (Curtin university, 2016) Plagiarism is defined as intellectual theft. (Curtin university, 2016) Plagiarising or letting another person copy your own work for assessments, group project or in examinations is strictly prohibited in any circumstance. (Curtin university, 2016) Any work done by someone else must be credited in the reference by a person who are quoting the idea.

As acknowledged by the author, current measures in responsible conduct of research (RCR) pedagogy including RCR training, have failed in preventing research misconduct. This illuminates the fact that the officials lack adequate guidance on determining which actions would be suitable in specific instances of research misconduct. If researchers are given second chances, it is vitally important to identify new strategies to prevent repeat offenders. Galbraith recommends utilising Kalichman’s (2014) proposal to take the RCR training from the class into the research field. This will familiarise integrity issues within the scientific community and emphasise the influence of contextual issues. This method has reportedly increased and sustained ethical

There has been a long-going development of a public image of scientists, one that has recently begun to change. Due to factors such as the internet and the media, science is something that is able to been seen and looked into simultaneously by numerous people. When a scientist intentionally fudges their data, it is not small news. Problems of this sort have birthed various concerns about science, and about science’s authority and reliability in specific. This speculation of dishonest scientists not only will effect the reliability of science in the eyes of the public, but also the realm in which scientists are producing truly credible knowledge. “Our technical knowledge is only as secure as the moral economy in which it is produced” (Shapin, ?). As of now, the way in which scientists come to agree or settle disputes, is an issue that we cannot fully grasp.

“Professional Ethics Report (PER) is published by the AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program, in conjunction with the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility.The quarterly newsletter, which has been in publication since 1988, reports on news and events, programs and activities, and resources related to professional ethics issues, with a particular focus on those professions whose members are engaged in scientific research and its applications.”(Professional Ethics Report)