How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing.

IF 3.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities Life Sciences, Society and Policy Pub Date : 2020-08-06 DOI:10.1186/s40504-020-00102-6
Knut Jørgen Vie
{"title":"How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing.","authors":"Knut Jørgen Vie","doi":"10.1186/s40504-020-00102-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper, I will argue that making it mandatory to report research misconduct is too demanding, as this kind of intervention can at times be self-destructive for the researcher reporting the misconduct. I will also argue that posing the question as a binary dilemma masks important ethical aspects of such situations. In situations that are too demanding for individual researchers to rectify through reporting, there can be other forms of social control available. I will argue that researchers should explore these. Finally, framing the issue as a question about the responsibilities of individual researchers masks the responsibilities of research institutions. Until institutions introduce measures that make this safe and effective, we should not consider reporting research misconduct mandatory. I will discuss this in light of both quantitative and qualitative data gathered as part of a survey in the PRINTEGER-project.</p>","PeriodicalId":37861,"journal":{"name":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-020-00102-6","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-020-00102-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this paper, I will argue that making it mandatory to report research misconduct is too demanding, as this kind of intervention can at times be self-destructive for the researcher reporting the misconduct. I will also argue that posing the question as a binary dilemma masks important ethical aspects of such situations. In situations that are too demanding for individual researchers to rectify through reporting, there can be other forms of social control available. I will argue that researchers should explore these. Finally, framing the issue as a question about the responsibilities of individual researchers masks the responsibilities of research institutions. Until institutions introduce measures that make this safe and effective, we should not consider reporting research misconduct mandatory. I will discuss this in light of both quantitative and qualitative data gathered as part of a survey in the PRINTEGER-project.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究人员应该如何应对发现研究不端行为的伦理要求?超越报道和举报。
在本文中,我将认为强制报告研究不当行为过于苛刻,因为这种干预有时会对报告不当行为的研究人员造成自我毁灭。我还认为,将这个问题作为一个二元困境,掩盖了这种情况下重要的伦理方面。在对个别研究人员要求太高而无法通过报告加以纠正的情况下,可以采用其他形式的社会控制。我认为研究人员应该探索这些。最后,把这个问题框定为研究人员个人责任的问题,掩盖了研究机构的责任。在机构引入安全有效的措施之前,我们不应该认为报告研究不端行为是强制性的。我将根据在printeger项目中作为调查的一部分收集的定量和定性数据来讨论这个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Life Sciences, Society and Policy
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Life Sciences, Society and Policy (LSSP) is to analyse social, ethical and legal dimensions of the most dynamic branches of life sciences and technologies, and to discuss ways to foster responsible innovation, sustainable development and user-driven social policies. LSSP provides an academic forum for engaged scholarship at the intersection of life sciences, philosophy, bioethics, science studies and policy research, and covers a broad area of inquiry both in emerging research areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, biophysics, molecular engineering, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, and in more applied fields such as translational medicine, food science, environmental science, climate studies, research on animals, sustainability, science education and others. The goal is to produce insights, tools and recommendations that are relevant not only for academic researchers and teachers, but also for civil society, policy makers and industry, as well as for professionals in education, health care and the media, thus contributing to better research practices, better policies, and a more sustainable global society.
期刊最新文献
Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance. "Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource. Investigating the effectiveness of nanotechnologies in environmental health with an emphasis on environmental health journals. Limits of data anonymity: lack of public awareness risks trust in health system activities. The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1