How Are Jacies Falsified?

To ensure that a researcher’s enthusiasm for knowledge and understanding doesn’t let them get carried away, clear guidelines for ethical behaviour in research, a Code of Ethics, have been established by governments, institutions and various professional societies such as the American Psychological Association(APA), the British Psychological Society (BPS) and the Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI).

As a student, the aftereffects of plagiarism usually occur in a common sequence. The first consequence begins with a verbal warning (“Honor Code”, 2012) and the next offense can come in the form of a written warning. After written warnings are given the guilty party can be suspended. However, consequences of plagiarism can be even further reaching. Suspension or expulsion from the university, or academic institution where research was taken place, can occur. Beyond these outcomes, recommendations for punishment can include counseling and community service (“Recognizing and Avoiding Plagiarism”).

Additionally human medical research studies often targeted those who came to public teaching institutions desperately seeking free medical treatment and who generally looked up to doctors and experimenters as experts in the field who were there to help them. While this motivation may seem logical, it is often faulty as many human medical research studies throughout history demonstrate that the motivation of medical researches is often not the care of those currently suffering from a particular condition but the future returns on the cures or medical treatments that may be discovered during the study (McKie). As with many such unethical studies, the participants often do not give consent and are not informed of known dangers to the procedure, medications or lack of treatment. The use of individuals who are poor, uneducated, and lack medical insurance in combination with prestigious university research institutions and the white coated, well-educated researchers motivated by discoveries of cures on the scientific frontier results in abuses of individuals.

An article was chosen from the University Library to evaluate the issue of unethical business research conduct. The article chose is called Flacking for Big Pharma: Drugmakers Don't Just Compromise Doctors; They Also Undermine the Top Medical Journals and Skew the Findings of Medical Research . The identification of the unethical business research involved in the article is given. The parties involved along with effected party is mentioned. The evaluation of the article also identifies how the unethical behavior affected the organization, injured party, and society. A proposition of

Research is important in any business to interpret data being collected to improve or make new discoveries. The article read was about Dr. Woo Suk Hwang who used unethical research to enhance his career in the world of science. Hwang hurt everyone who was involved in his work. Leading people to believe that his research was real he provided false hope into his new discoveries. Trying to figure out why he would want to ruin his career and how this could have been avoided is important to why he used fabricated research. Looking into the unethical decisions made by Dr. Woo Suk Hwang will help people see what could be possible consequences for using false

Academic dishonesty such as plagiarism has been a major factor in education that has affected students’ success and academic achievements in recent years. Plagiarism according to Park (2003) is the act of appropriating or copying another person’s work and passing them on as one’s idea without acknowledging the original source. Park (2003) noted that plagiarism is a growing problem and has been a misuse of the writings of another author, their ideas, hypothesis, theories, research findings and interpretations. Furthermore studies by Chao, Wilhelm and Neureuther (2009) emphasised that

In the professional field, academic dishonesty obstructs respect and fairness between all students, staff and faculty members that share a common goal. It shatters mutual trust that is shared and maintained between students and faculty members in an academic relationship. When students claim someone else work as their own, they are giving credit to themselves and not the original publisher. Also, it violates the standard academic integrity by delivering false information to fellow students and professors. The 2017-2018 Brandman Catalog makes a valid point that, “The University expects that students will conduct themselves in an honest and ethical manner and respect the intellectual work of others” (Brandman University, 2017). This shows how

All psychologists including those in the field of research are obliged to abide by the APA Ethics Code standards. Therefore, I agree that they should be held accountable for manipulations, falsification of data, and plagiarism to favor their studies. These actions violate the various standards of the aforementioned code: 5.01 (Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements), 8.10 (Reporting Research Results), and 8.11 (Plagiarism). Violations of this kind should be penalized by law as the standards are enforced by law. Psychologist researchers, who discover flaws in their published studies, should take steps to amend their faults by publishing other articles, (APA, 2010).

The 16 NASW Ethical Standards would have had a positive impacted on many aspects of the design and implementation of the Tuskegee Study. The well-being, privacy, and dignity of the research participants would have been taken into consideration prior to the design and implementation of the Tuskegee Study. The research participants would have been informed of the nature and extent of the research along with the possible risks and benefits of participating in the research study. The NASW Ethical Guidelines for Research and Evaluation letter (e) states, “Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should obtain voluntary and written informed consent from participants, when appropriate, without any implied or actual deprivation or penalty

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

The article discusses the increasing trend of conducting replications, as opposed to novel idea studies Additionally, the article highlights that replications are becoming more common and can lead to debunking and discrediting another’s work. Unfortunately, with the focus being on replication, the time spent conducting and exploring new knowledge is consequently reduced. However, it is also suggested that replications provide accountability for scientists to ensure their work is of high quality. Questions to discuss in class: What do we think is the ultimate goal of conducting a replication versus an original study? How can scientists ensure that as a field, the

Human subjects are recruited to participate in a variety of research projects to include clinical trials, experiments, data collection, sampling, surveys, etc. Over time it has come under fire because of the influx of ethical issues associated with human participant research. The American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code which is made up of 5 principles and 8 standards) provide guidance and serves to protect the public from ethical misconduct, it also serves to guide and protect professionals.

This is only reinforced by Cassuto’s work, as it discusses at length the “publish or perish” (Cassuto, 228) nature of scientific research. In an environment where highly visible success—the type of success that Schön embodied before his fraudulence was revealed—is needed in order to sustain a career, it seems that the system which dictates success should have nearly impassable safeguards against fraudulent achievement of that success. However, despite all that is both fiscally and less tangibly—chiefly by way of reputation and public trust—at stake, that may not be the case.

In this paper, I will discuss how to ensure that all aspects of my doctoral research, from literature review, conducting research, writing the dissertation manuscript and so on, will be done in careful and integrity manner in such a way that it will meet the ethical standards of scientific research. This will ensure that my research will be accepted, published, and contribute to the body of knowledge. Also, to achieve this, I, will try to follow and justify all the steps needed in order to ensure that the ethical integrity of my dissertation project is met. More so, in effort to accomplish these, I will clearly outline ethical principles and state how to apply them to research work. I will also, further elucidate how I will apply published ethical guidelines and concepts to my research project. Some specific areas I will address include Plagiarism, Risk assessment, Informed consent, Privacy and confidentiality, Data handling and reporting, Mistakes and negligence, Working with a Mentor, Northcentral University requirements for IRB approval. I will conclude this paper by expressing my thought on the following statement, “Ethical scientific researchers have a commitment to all who are touched by their research—participants who share their lives and time, mentors and advisors, reviewers, future readers, and supporters and cheerleaders on the journey—to take care and do their work well”.

Looking beyond the Nuremberg Code and applying it to modern medical research ethics, there are many challenges that it poses. Many have argued that the Code tries to provide for all unforeseen events, which restricts the researcher by requiring him to anticipate every situation, demanding the