Advertisement

A Question of Trust

  • Peter TruranEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.2k Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

Abstract

The high profile cases of scientific misconduct which have surfaced in recent years have highlighted the need for guidelines to help researchers avoid drifting over the line into fraud, and to ensure that honest researchers are in a position to effectively guard themselves against such accusations. Ultimately, the integrity and credibility of science depends upon the intellectual honesty of its researchers.

Keywords

Vaccination Rate Good Laboratory Practice Research Misconduct Scientific Misconduct Laboratory Notebook 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Committee on the Conduct of Science. National Academy of Sciences (1989) On being a scientist. Proc Nat Acad. Sci USA 86:9053 (An excellent guide to ethical principles for scientists, published as a downloadable book in 2009 by the US national academies of sciences. It’s very accessible for graduate and undergraduate students, and includes case studies for discussion.)Google Scholar
  2. Deer B (2011) Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ 342:c5347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. OECD Global Science Forum (2007) Best practices for ensuring scientific integrity and preventing misconduct. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/17/40188303.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2011
  4. Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H (2011) Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ 342:c7452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goodstein D (2000) In defense of Robert Andrews Millikan. http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/Millikan Feature.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2011
  6. Lakatos I (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge, Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge, p 92Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for the Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations