Folklore, fad, and fashion: The concept of misconduct in science redefined

This study is an analytical investigation of the nature and implications of the current conceptions of scientific misconduct, arguing that the question of what constitutes misconduct in science is significantly more complex than what conventionally has been believed. Complicating the definitions of misconduct are the differences between professional science and non-scientific professions, in their respective norms of what constitutes valid knowledge, and what counts as appropriate and inappropriate practice. While institutionalized science claims that there is clear differentiation between its standards of validity and those of the non-scientific professions, this paper argues that, when it comes to misconduct, the perceived boundaries between the scientific and non-scientific professions are breached; the practice standards that science currently employs in self-policing misconduct have come to resemble the minimal juridical standards of practice that other professions employ. This study attempts, despite erosion of these traditional boundaries, to move from legalistic standards of scientific practice to intramural standards of practice, and in so doing, to hold scientific practice to a higher standard than ordinary public conduct. The result is a clearer understanding of scientific misconduct to aid those individual scientists who are required to make onerous determinations about the appropriateness of specific practices by their peers. ^

Program evaluation for a summer science internship: Short and long term benefits as reported by interns

Undergraduate research programs have been used as a tool to attract and retain student interest in science careers. This study evaluates the short and long-term benefits of a Summer Science Internship (SSI) at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston– School of Public Health – in Brownsville, Texas, by analyzing survey data from alumni. Questions assessing short-term program impact were aimed at three main topics, student: satisfaction with program, self-efficacy for science after completing the program, and perceived benefits. Long-term program impact was assessed by looking at student school attendance and college majors along with perceived links between SSI and future college plans. Students reported high program satisfaction, a significant increase in science self-efficacy and high perceived benefits. At the time data were collected for the study, one-hundred percent of alumni were enrolled in school (high school or college). The majority of students indicated they were interested in completing a science major/career, heavily influenced by their participation in the program.^