Scientific misconduct

One conclusion that can be drawn from this is that even the best of scientific labs and investigators can be seduced into scientific misconduct. Fortunately, such misconduct is rare in the scientific community. Another conclusion is that because the decay chain of element 118 produced the following new elements—116, as it was the result of the decay process of the nonexistent element 118, 114, 112, 110, 108, and 106— it throws suspicion on the existence of element 116. Still, many of the elements identified by the suspect decay chain have also been independently produced synthetically. 

Chemists should remain current with developments in their field, share ideas and information, and keep accurate and complete laboratory records, maintain integrity in all conduct and publications, and give due credit to the contributions of others. Conflicts of interest and scientific misconduct, such as fabrication and plagarism, are incompatible with this Code. 

An unfortunate footnote to this chapter in the history of the discovery of the heaviest elements is the revelation (Hofmann et al., 2002) that one of the decay chains reported by Hofmann et al. (1995a) for 269Ds was spuriously created, the result of human error or scientific misconduct. As disturbing as this finding is, it should not detract from the other correctly identified decay chains. 

Another training consideration is the detection, reporting, and handling of scientific fraud and misconduct. The emphasis of this training should be on helping staff members identify when a situation could raise suspicions of fraud... 

Where and how do students learn about these ethics-related scientific practices Historically, for scientists in training the process has been rather learn-as-you-go. It is generally assumed that senior scientists and teachers follow a code of defensible moral behavior and that, by their example, valuable lessons are transmitted to their students. Unfortunately, these assumptions are not necessarily valid, and cases of scientific misconduct surface in the... 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources. Office of Research Integrity (September 24, 2000). Analysis of Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct. Final Report. Columbia, AID Office of Research Integrity. Also available from . 

Chalmers 1.1990. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct . JAMA 338 367-371. 

Research misconduct strikes at the very heart of scientific objectivity. It raises doubts about the integrity of the science and our trust in the work of others. We must be able to believe in the reliability of scientific research. 

There has been much published on the incidence, detection and prosecution of publication fraud, rather less on fraud and misconduct in clinical research, but we should be equally concerned about research fraud. The Consensus Conference on Misconduct in Biomedical Research convened by the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in 1999 defined research misconduct as behavior by a researcher, intentional or not, that falls short of good ethical and scientific standards . Frank Wells, co-founder of MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd., the only specialist research fraud investigation company in Europe, prefers the generation of false data with the intention to deceive . 

Even apart from questions about scientific misconduct, its proof or rebuttal made possible through adherence to the principles of GLP, there can be benefits for the research work itself, in that it can help to resolve issues and problems which might arise from seemingly contradictory or unexpected findings. To illustrate this point, an example can be cited, where GLP was instrumental in the explanation of a spurious result. 

There are many ways in which scientific misconduct can occur. An example that often gets publicized by the press is scientific misconduct pertaining to the falsification of results, namely publication of fictitious or altered results claimed... 

Avoid scientific misconduct and expose it when encountered. AAPS uses the current federal definition of misconduct, 65 FR 76260-76264 Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or reporting research results. 

Wotiz and Rudofsky, "Kekule s Dreams" (1984) anon., "Developer of Key Theory May Have Been a Fraud" (1984) Seltzer, "Influence of Kekul Dream Disputed" (1985) Wotiz, "Unknown Kekule" (1987) Rudofsky and Wotiz, "Psychologists" (1988) Wotiz and Rudofsky, "Herr Professor Doktor Kekule" (1993) Borman, "Kekul Charged with Scientific Misconduct" (1993). An early critique of these arguments is Ramsay and Rocke, "Kekule s Dreams" (1984). 

---