I want to get a dialogue going about scientific misconduct vs = "questionable research practices" and your opinions as scientists on = these issues - and whistleblowing comes into this. In this era where it = seems the government and policymakers routinely ignore science, how does = one know what science to trust? If you're a whisteblower and you got = fired from a private industry (where there is little protection) about a = scientific integrity issue, email me offlist for an article I'm working = on.
Is there any kind of consensus in the general academic and scientific = community about ethics in scientific research, such as official = statements by major science organizations like AAAS, AIBS, NAS, or even = ESA. I've done some searching and what I've found is very scattered.=20 If you're a professor - when you are hired do you ever get told or = taught about the standards of ethics and integrity in research of your = institution?=20 So the question becomes - if the organization the scientists work for = turn the other cheek but there is public money involved, who holds them = accountable? The media? Other scientists?=20 I have been doing some searching and there is apparently a difference = between scientific misconduct/fraud and "questionable research = practices".=20 According to a 1992 letter by the National Academy of Sciences at = http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/POD500?OpenDocument = misconduct includes "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in = proposing, performing, or reporting research" while questionable = research practices are actions "that violate traditional values" of = scientific research but fall short of misconduct. They may, for example, = include failing to retain significant research data for a reasonable = period; using inappropriate statistical methods of measurement; = presenting speculations as fact; or bypassing peer review before = presenting results, especially in public forums. I ask all of you as scientists out there - what do YOU consider = scientific misconduct and what do you consider "questionable"? If you = know that (1) your being funded by public dollars and (2) your results = have policy implications that will affect millions of people - and yet = you still use weak statistical analysis that you were advised against - = is this misconduct or would this be accepted by peers? =20 At one point do you go to the public? Does it affect a lawsuit if you go = public?=20 I am interested in anyone and everyone's thoughts on these issues.=20 This is for a couple of things - one an article I'm writing where a = couple of "questionable research practices" have come up - further = investigation may show them to be actual misconduct but the case for the = practices being questionable research is strong.=20 Wendee ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. ~ LOGOS Communications=20 Freelance Writer-Photographer ~~ http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com Bohemian Adventures Blog ~~ http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com 281-798-8417 ~ ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Better to light a candle than curse the darkness - Chinese proverb
