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. ^

A case study approach to estimating the burden of research misconduct in publicly funded medical research

The economic impact of research misconduct in medical research has been unexplored. While research misconduct in publicly funded medical research has increasingly been the object of discussion, public policy debate, government and institutional action, and scientific research, the costs of research misconduct have been unexamined. The author develops a model to estimate the per case cost of research misconduct, specifically the costs of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, in publicly funded medical research. Using the database of Research Misconduct Findings maintained by the Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, the model is used to estimate costs of research misconduct in public funded medical research among faculty during the period 2000-2005.^

A letter to the lord lieutenant of the county of Surrey, on the misconduct of licensing magistrates, and the consequent degradation of the magistracy.

Mode of access: Internet.

Whistleblower protection : survey of federal employees on misconduct and protection from reprisal : fact sheet for the Chairman, Subcommittee on the Civil Service, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives /

"B-249141"--P. [1].

Alternative discipline : creative solutions for agencies to effectively address employee misconduct.

"July 2008"--Letter of transmission.

Fundamental Fairness in Sexual Misconduct Adjudications: Evaluating Private Universities for Due Process Rights in their Policies and Procedures

There is a national debate on how universities should respond to sexual assault, specifically the advantages and shortcomings of the campus adjudication Process. One major critique of university adjudication is that it does not provide the necessary due process rights to the accused and is therefore not fundamentally fair. This study seeks to assess this validity of this critique by seeing if sexual misconduct policies lack due process and if so, to what extent. This investigation is a comparative case study of 14 private higher education institutions, belonging to the Ivy Plus Society, analyzing their policy and procedure documents for indicators of due process. Findings show that schools are complying between 45% and 85% of due process indicators with an average of 65%. Colleges do lack due process rights and need to revise their policies and procedures to clearly present these rights. Key recommendations include guaranteeing a hearing procedure with impartial decision-makers and the opportunity to submit evidence and witnesses.

The beliefs of nurses who were involved in a whistleblowing event

Background. Nursing codes of ethics bind nurses to the role of patient advocate and compel them to take action when the rights or safety of a patient are jeopardized. Reporting misconduct is known as whistleblowing and studies indicate that there are personal and professional risks involved in blowing the whistle. Aim. The aim of this study was to explore the beliefs of nurses who wrestled with this ethical dilemma. Design. A descriptive survey design was used to examine the beliefs of nurses in Western Australia who reported misconduct (whistleblowers) and of those who did not report misconduct (nonwhistleblowers). Methods. The instrument listed statements from current ethical codes, statements from traditional views on nursing and statements of beliefs related to the participant's whistleblowing experience. Respondents were asked to rate each item on a five-point Likert format which ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Data were analysed using a Pearson's correlation matrix and one-way ANOVA. To further explore the data, a factor analysis was run with varimax rotation. Results. Results indicated that whistleblowers supported the beliefs inherent in patient advocacy, while nonwhistleblowers retained a belief in the traditional role of nursing. Participants who reported misconduct (whistleblowers) supported the belief that nurses were primarily responsible to the patient and should protect a patient from incompetent or unethical people. Participants who did not report misconduct (nonwhistleblowers) supported the belief that nurses are obligated to follow a physician's order at all times and that nurses are equally responsible to the patient, the physician and the employer. Conclusion. These findings indicate that nurses may respond to ethical dilemmas based on different belief systems.