Research Misconduct Case Study

Research is something that comes before counteranalysis. Through research we are supposed to get closer to issue or legal position being addressed, and than to find out weaknesses according to which

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).

For example,it say, “Before the Board of Regents announced its decision, the negative press about Southam’s work had gotten the attention of the NIH, which funded his research and required it's investigators to get consent for all studies involving humans.” Another example,it says, “Beecher published a detailed list of the twenty-two worst offenders, including researchers who'd injected children with hepatitis and others who'd poisoned patients under anesthesia using carbon dioxide. Southam’s study was included as example number 17.” These pieces of textual evidence show how NIH found Southam and other scientists were doing unethical

In addition, whistleblowers should be portrayed as being good in order for society to begin seeing them in a positive way. Furthermore, the government should make this type of crimes a public matter. Allowing the public to be able to see all charges and outcome regarding these cases could bring out other wrongdoings in other organizations. The government should also impose greater punishment such as jail time for these types of crimes rather than imposing fines that they are able to

A good example of misconduct was the case in Atlanta involving the death of a woman named Kathryn Johnson. To further explain, the police stated that they an undercover agent bought drugs at her house but it wasn’t Kathryn. Law enforcement was able to acquire a warrant to enter Johnson’s home. They were

N.M. 575,577,555 P.2d 696,698 (1976): “ Misconduct” is limited to conduct envincing such wilful or

One thing I notice is a lot of the misconduct is by the arresting officers or detectives that are investigating the crime. The ways an office can have misconduct that could lead to false convictions, include suggestions when conducting interviews, coercing false confessions, lying to jurors about observations, failing to turn over evidence. Common forms of misconduct by a prosecutor can include, withhold evidence from defense, mishandling, mistreating or destroying evidence, allowing witnesses that they know are not truthful to testify, Pressing Witnesses of the defense to not testify, relying on fraudulent forensic experts.

Whilst deception played a huge role in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, many are aware that deception compromises the integrity of research study. Malicious violations of human rights have transpired throughout American history titles under the name research. Under those past circumstances, there have been some discoveries that helped propel mankind’s survival and advanced knowledge. These discoveries do not validate the cruelties that unprivileged people like African Americans endured. Overall, it should be mandatory for research studies to be ethical and not undermine the values and dignity of humanity.

The history of research ethics begins with tragic historical cases of unethical research and how they contributed toward present values and ethics in research. One of these historical tragic studies was the Tuskegee Syphilis Study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service in Macon County, Alabama. This post will discuss the unethical behavior of that study.

Another clear cause of the unethical study behaviour lies in the freedom given to the scientists. The researchers

Prosecutorial misconduct is defined as the use of deceptive, illegal or reprehensible methods used by a prosecutor, to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury. Wrongful convictions in this country are nothing new to the criminal justice system. They are as old as the system itself, and they will continue to exist as long as the fallibility of human judgment continues.

One thing I notice is a lot of the misconduct is by the arresting officers or detectives that are investigating the crime. The ways an office can have misconduct that could lead to false convictions, include suggestions when conducting interviews, coercing false confessions, lying to jurors about observations, failing to turn over evidence. Common forms of misconduct by a prosecutor can include, withhold evidence from defense, mishandling, mistreating or destroying evidence, allowing witnesses that they know are not truthful to testify, Pressing Witnesses of the defense to not testify, relying on fraudulent forensic experts.

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

There were some behaviors defined in the program that I was surprised to find academically dishonest. This is mostly because some of these behaviors had never occurred to me. This includes all the lab-related behaviors, such as dry lab data, trimming data, cooking data, ecology tampering, and carelessness. Dry lab data is reporting data for samples that have not been analyzed. Trimming data is cutting out the outliers from data that would “skew” your analyses, while cooking data is creating fabricated, new data to fit your analyses. Ecology tampering is intentionally changing environments between experimental groups to yield the results that you want. Carelessness is not paying close attention to something – calculations, lab procedures, etc. – and inadvertently reporting inaccurate results. All the behaviors described are academically dishonest because students have the same responsibilities as professionally-trained scientists since they are now within the same realm of science. Reporting inaccurate lab/research data can

The whistleblower him or herself must be carefully scrutinized. What are the personal and the professional reputations of the whistleblower? What is the motive driving the whistleblower? Is it to benefit the client or the organization, or is it a need for attention or revenge? Is the whistleblower's cause seen as legitimate and significant by trustworthy colleagues and friends? Is the whistleblower aware of the potential consequences of blowing the whistle and still willing to accept responsibility for actions taken?