https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Marc.VanHoof 2026-05-24T13:51:47Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.11 https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:8367e13a-b836-4237-bfdd-e2d9dd491329&diff=5291 2020-10-25T17:35:34Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Bothered and Bewildered But not Bewitched<br /> |Is About=This case is about article amendments which unfortunately became a daily practice. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=When an article is being published, one assumes that the co-authors are aware of its publication. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.jci.org/articles/view/37695<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2008<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:20c8233b-7f3b-46f4-969a-882bb832581c&diff=5290 2020-10-25T17:34:34Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Biologist Spared Jail For Grant Fraud<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case describing how an immunologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Luk Van Parijs, was found to be solely responsible for more than 11 incidents of data fabrication in grant applications and papers submitted between 1997 and 2004. &lt;ref&gt;https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(09)00154-X&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Van Parijs avoided jail after several prominent scientists wrote letters begging for clemency on his behalf and was sentenced to home detention, community service and financial restitution.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/03/former-mit-researcher-convicted-fraud&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=The case illustrates that coming clean promptly can be a good strategy for those who have committed scientific misconduct.<br /> <br /> The case can spur awareness of early signs.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110728/full/news.2011.437.html&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=Researchers; PI; Supervisors<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/474552a<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1997<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Fraud in grant application<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:5b8e9f7c-7c80-4aa5-9a01-cada03fe4533&diff=5289 2020-10-25T17:33:33Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Years of Ethics Charges, but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/cancer-carlo-croce.html<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2013<br /> |Has Location=United States; Ohio State University<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Image manipulation<br /> |Related To Research Area=Biological Sciences<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:08975223-a994-4ab1-8530-a8ab251dd190&diff=5288 2020-10-25T17:32:51Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Whistle-blower Claims his Accusations Cost him his Job<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/474140a<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=University of Wisconsin<br /> |Has Timepoint=2009<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Whistleblower retaliation<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:Ba84b1f8-06f6-4582-95f9-ec033265ba22&diff=5287 2020-10-25T17:31:58Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=When Sociologists Deceive Their Subjects<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9711/9711.allen.html<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1986<br /> |Has Location=United States; USA<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Deception; Consent<br /> |Related To Research Area=Sociology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:9c053ef4-ced1-4f64-901d-ff1df57f0e55&diff=5286 2020-10-25T17:30:55Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=What is Recklessness in Scientific Research? The Frank Sauer Case<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2017.1397517?journalCode=gacr20<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2011<br /> |Has Location=United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Fabrication; Image Manipulation<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:E1f32efa-98f0-4036-857b-441c15bb39da&diff=5285 2020-10-25T17:29:45Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Unlicensed usage of medical devices on patients: a case of accusations<br /> |Is About=The case is about a factual controversy that surrounded the experimental usage of a heart valve device called a Myxo ring. A doctor accused the inventor of the device of using the Myxo ring on patients with surgical needs without informing them the device is not licensed. The university refused the accusations arguing that the ring is FDA approved. Some conflict of interests issues are also discussed.<br /> |Important Because=The development of innovative materials and devices for better treatment and health care are significant goals of medicine. New materials and devices must be tested on patients in a professional infrastructure, in controlled settings while properly following the ethical and legal regulation on clinical trials on medical devices. Informed consent and independent REC approval are necessary conditions.<br /> |Important For=Research Ethics Committees; health care professionals; medical researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/06/doctors-experimenting-on-humans-five-questions-with-dr-nalini-rajamannan.html<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=7-6-2011<br /> |Has Location=USA; United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethical approval by necessary body; Conflict of interest; Informed consent<br /> |Related To Research Area=Basic medicine; LS 04.07 - Cardiovascular diseases; LS 07.01 - Medical engineering and technology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:1b777e40-9d7f-4ef4-a601-6be70c9e386a&diff=5284 2020-10-25T17:28:11Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=University Investigation Finds Misconduct by Bone Researcher with 23 Retractions<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/06/university-investigation-finds-misconduct-bone-researcher-23-retractions/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=6-12-2017<br /> |Has Location=Japan<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Authorship; Plagiarism; Faked Data; Japan Retractions; Misconduct of Investigations<br /> |Related To Research Area=Basic Medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:A802f73c-32b0-4c62-8068-434198636bc9&diff=5283 2020-10-25T17:27:03Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=UNE in Row Over Bullying Survey<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.injuredworkerssupport.org.au/une-in-row-over-bullying-survey/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2014<br /> |Has Location=Australia; University of New England<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Reliability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Mentor/trainee relationship; Work environment; Bullying; Power abuse<br /> |Related To Research Area=Political Sciences<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:C4609126-4aaa-43c3-87e7-a99d3ac85948&diff=5282 2020-10-25T17:26:13Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=U.S. Gov’t Physicist Sentenced to 18 months in Prison for Fraud<br /> |Is About=This is an article about physicist Sean Darin Kinion who was working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He faked data and reports in quantum computing research. In 2016 Kinion was sentenced to 18 months in prison for faking data and ordered to pay back the funding.<br /> |Important Because=The article may be used as a case study in the context of research integrity training.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; PhD students; Graduate students; Research integrity trainers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/12/23/u-s-govt-physicist-sentenced-18-months-prison-fraud/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2016<br /> |Has Location=United States; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Reproducibility<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Fraud; Computer Science; Faked Data; Legal Threats; Misconduct Investigations; Physics Retractions<br /> |Related To Research Area=Computer and Information Sciences<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:6bcb5216-4e02-470f-85e7-abd492d47134&diff=5281 2020-10-25T17:24:02Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=U.S. Finds Misconduct by Ex-Researchers at Chicago and UCSF<br /> |Is About=This is an article about H. Rosie Xing, a cancer researcher working at the University of Chicago who engaged in research misconduct by using manipulated images in her publications, and James P. Warne, a diabetes researcher at the University of California at San Francisco who falsified data in publications and grant applications.<br /> |Important Because=This article may be used as a source of case studies in the context of research integrity training.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Graduate students; PhD Students; Research integrity trainers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/12/15/us-finds-misconduct-ex-researchers-chicago-and-ucsf<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:Ae1b3645-f7f2-4c55-a09d-c24935fd73db;Resource:58f8a252-1eb7-42aa-8a66-31f042b632dd;Resource:20c8233b-7f3b-46f4-969a-882bb832581c;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2014<br /> |Has Location=United States; University of California at San Francisco; University of Chicago; National Cancer Institute<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Integrity; Reliability; Reproducibility<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Image manipulation<br /> |Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:716dca50-ee7d-4fc5-86f2-491d88d3cf4d&diff=5280 2020-10-25T17:23:07Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Traver paper: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion<br /> |Is About=This is a historical case about an entomologist called Jay Traver who published her personal experiences with a mite infestation of her scalp in the ''Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington'' in 1951. Although results are not reproducible and seem to have been fabricated (hence, deserving of a retraction), in this article it is argued that since she suffered from Delusory Parasitosis, the accusations of fabrication may not hold, and bad science would be a better description of the problem at hand. Accordingly, the validity of a retraction note due to fabrication is questioned on the grounds of discrimination against mentally ill.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=It raises questions about the definition of fabrication and its difference with bad science, and whether journal editors should/could take into account the mental state of authors who submit articles.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Journal editors; Policy makers<br /> |Has Best Practice=Editors need to publish a retraction notice and specifically clarify the unreliability of results, without making a reference to the mental state of the author.<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-011-9339-2<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1951<br /> |Has Location=United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication (unconsciously)<br /> |Related To Research Area=Biological sciences<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:Fa27f5f7-b2cd-43b3-83df-892fc20d948b&diff=5279 2020-10-25T17:22:16Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=The role of moral philosophy in the divide between science and non-science<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-007-9035-z<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1993 - 2006<br /> |Has Location=Norway<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; REC approval<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:569d9ce8-85a9-4494-8e9c-647cedaff2fd&diff=5278 2020-10-25T17:21:13Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=The Unfortunate Experiment<br /> |Is About=This is a historical case about Dr. Herbert Green's unethical experiment concerning the treatment given to women &quot;with a premalignant cell condition in the neck of the womb, known as carcinoma in situ (CIS)&quot;. Major ethical issues include &quot;disregarding therapeutic obligations&quot; (or as others have called it &quot;adopting an unorthodox approach to the management of CIS&quot;), and lack of informed consent (p. 269).<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=It discusses the responsibilities of researchers as clinician and a researcher. Furthermore, it provides a brief historical analysis of the development of research policies regarding ethical reviews in New Zealand.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Policy makers<br /> |Has Best Practice=Although adequeate checks and balances seem to have not been in place at the time when the experiment was being conducted, Dr. Green should have informed his patients about the unorthodox method he was using.<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/an-unfortunate-experiment/AA790F92D98EF01CF3D4504F43465BFD<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1966-1980; 1988<br /> |Has Location=New Zealand<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Care<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:C8e3f6c0-0cb7-485a-89ce-bafda9a10691&diff=5276 2020-10-25T17:19:31Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=The Slippery Slope of Errors<br /> |Is About=Research fraud concerning the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine lead to a measles outbreak in Wales in the UK affecting over a thousand children. Innocent people became the victims of another person's wilful misdemeanour, and in this case a ‘misdemeanour’ whose long‐term implications were probably not fully understood at the time of initial exposure&lt;ref&gt;https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijpp.12044&lt;/ref&gt;. This is a factual case.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=This kind of research fraud can cause an entire outbreak of a disease and furthermore cost innocent people's lives.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijpp.12044<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1998<br /> |Has Location=United Kingdom; UK<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Falsification; Fabrication; Peer review<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:3d565816-370d-43a0-8cef-acb00f74f325&diff=5275 2020-10-25T17:18:41Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=The Saga of Korean Women Who Provided Eggs for Embryonic Stem Cell Research<br /> |Is About=This paper summarizes a scandal related to the origin of the eggs obtained for research on cloned human embryos. In 2004 and 2005, researcher 'W' was acclaimed for creating stem cells from cloned human embryos. Concerns were later raised, however, about the source of the eggs for the embryos. An investigation discovered that the researcher had failed to fully inform the women donating the eggs about the purpose of the research, had failed to gain their informed consent, and had made payments or 'undue inducements' to obtain eggs. In fact, 75% of women had received payments and two female junior researchers from research W's lab were coerced into donating their own eggs&lt;ref&gt;Baylis, Francoise. &quot;For love or money? The saga of Korean women who provided eggs for embryonic stem cell research.&quot; ''Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics'' 30.5 (2009): 385.&lt;/ref&gt;. This is a factual case.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=Common research ethics principles (Belmont 1978) that  should be upheld are&lt;ref&gt;National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Bethesda, Md. ''The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research''. Superintendent of Documents, 1978.&lt;/ref&gt; :<br /> <br /> '''Respect for persons''': individuals are autonomous agents and those with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.<br /> <br /> '''Beneficence''': researchers should (1) do no harm and (2) increase potential benefits and decrease possible adverse events or harm. Participants must be aware of the risks and burdens of research. <br /> <br /> '''Justice''': requires equal treatment and fairness for all people. <br /> <br /> In the case in question, a failure to adequately inform research participants or coercing people to join research violated these principles.&lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=researchers; research leaders; Research subjects<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-009-9118-0<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2004<br /> |Has Location=South Korea<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Informed consent<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine; Medical biotechnology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:369d2eb6-90ef-4198-8268-a95e51a307d0&diff=5274 2020-10-25T17:17:00Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences<br /> |Is About=This paper focuses on the infamous case of Hwang Woo Suk, the South-Korean national hero and once celebrated pioneer of stem cell research. After briefly discussing the evolution of his publication and research scandal in Science, the author attempts to outline the main reactions that emerged within scientific and bioethical discourses on the problem of research misconduct in contemporary biosciences. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=Regulatory oversight, ethical requirements and institutional safeguards are often viewed by the scientific community as merely decelerating scientific progress and causing delays in the application of treatments. The Hwang’s case represents how unimpeded progress works in contemporary science. Thus, the case might shed light on the often neglected benefits of “the social control of science”.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-009-9121-x<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:740210e9-b695-428b-90a3-f3af7a94a174;Resource:Dd7bd3da-ee07-4642-8b4e-23e18d16fa4b<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2004; 2005; 2009<br /> |Has Location=Korea<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Fabrication; Informed consent<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine; Medical Biotechnology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:3ed20282-71b3-4ef0-bf37-d07d18d6674f&diff=5273 2020-10-25T17:15:55Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=The Extent and Causes of Academic Text Recycling or ‘Self-Plagiarism’<br /> |Is About=This study investigated the extent of problematic text recycling in order to obtain understanding of its occurrence in four research areas: biochemistry &amp; molecular biology, economics, history and psychology. They also investigated some potential reasons and motives for authors to recycle their text, by testing current hypotheses in scholarly literature regarding the causes of text recycling&lt;ref&gt;Horbach, SPJM Serge, and W. Willem Halffman. &quot;The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’.&quot; ''Research Policy'' 48.2 (2019): 492-502.&lt;/ref&gt;. This is a factual case.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=Among the various forms of academic misconduct, text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’ holds a particularly contentious position as a new way to game the reward system of science&lt;ref&gt;Horbach, SPJM Serge, and W. Willem Halffman. &quot;The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’.&quot; ''Research Policy'' 48.2 (2019): 492-502.&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317301543?via%3Dihub<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=The Netherlands<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Self-plagiarism<br /> |Related To Research Area=Economics and business<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:88dc8775-914c-4b5b-95eb-6e66a5c82029&diff=5272 2020-10-25T17:14:34Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Sitting in Judgement<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/419332a<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1999<br /> |Has Location=United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:7de2dab5-11f2-4827-b3d8-c4fbf24295a6&diff=5271 2020-10-25T17:13:42Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Simultaneous Submission Leading to Duplicate Publication<br /> |Is About=All medical journals require submission of a contributors’ form signed by all the authors declaring that “Neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my/our authorship has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere.” It seems that sometimes authors do not read the declaration thoroughly or perhaps understand the implications of signing it&lt;ref&gt;Bhandarkar, Deepraj. &quot;Simultaneous submission leading to duplicate publication: Scientific misconduct rears its ugly head.&quot; ''Journal of minimal access surgery'' 9.4 (2013): 147.&lt;/ref&gt;. This is a factual case.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=The practice of simultaneous submission is considered a violation of medical publishing ethics and is frowned upon for several reasons&lt;ref&gt;Bhandarkar, Deepraj. &quot;Simultaneous submission leading to duplicate publication: Scientific misconduct rears its ugly head.&quot; ''Journal of minimal access surgery'' 9.4 (2013): 147.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=researchers; phd students; research leaders<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=http://www.journalofmas.com/article.asp?issn=0972-9941;year=2013;volume=9;issue=4;spage=147;epage=148;aulast=Bhandarkar<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:A22bd155-7f88-4750-aa9c-cba9ad72cbec<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2008<br /> |Has Location=India<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Duplication<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:4be659bc-2261-4e62-b4ed-d746e9f2c5be&diff=5270 2020-10-25T17:12:24Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Scientist Ousted From Cancer Study Declines to Testify to House Panel<br /> |Is About=Data falsification in a series of studies which showed that lumpectomy was as effective as removing the entire breast for preventing recurrence in many women with early cancer. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=To give insight in different ways of cheating in clinical trials.<br /> |Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research; phd students<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/12/science/doctor-s-world-scientist-ousted-cancer-study-declines-testify-house-panel.html<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1985-1990<br /> |Has Location=Canada<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:45af2d0e-4238-4d3b-8431-9b7682eb9691&diff=5269 2020-10-25T17:11:15Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science<br /> |Is About=The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691612460687<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:Af266b39-20a3-4b97-a876-08eebb428fe6;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2012<br /> |Has Location=United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Fraud; Misconduct; Peer Review<br /> |Related To Research Area=Psychology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:2dc3a671-8e74-48c3-9979-cb20d9902bed&diff=5268 2020-10-25T17:10:06Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Science and Surveillance: Western Institutions Consider Role in China’s Uighur Crackdown<br /> |Is About=This case is about using genetic material from the oppressed Uighur minority group in China to develop next-generation surveillance tools that could allow authorities to construct an image of someone’s face from information in their DNA&lt;ref&gt;https://undark.org/2019/12/06/abstracts-dna-surveillance-china/&lt;/ref&gt;. This is a factual case.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=&lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://undark.org/2019/12/06/abstracts-dna-surveillance-china/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2019<br /> |Has Location=China<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Big Data; Blood Collection; Consent; Profiling; Big Data; Ethnic Minorities; Consent<br /> |Related To Research Area=Health biotechnology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:01327c5f-1784-470f-a360-a9952f3e497e&diff=5267 2020-10-25T17:09:13Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Romanian Scientists Fight Plagiarism<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/romanian-scientists-fight-plagiarism-1.11170<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2011<br /> |Has Location=Romania<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:D01b51ff-5e1e-4f6b-b6df-b83e75730157&diff=5266 2020-10-25T17:08:08Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Reviewer’s Déjà Vu, French Science Sleuthing Uncover Plagiarized Papers<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://science.sciencemag.org/content/335/6073/1157<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2006<br /> |Has Location=Congo<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism<br /> |Related To Research Area=Biological sciences<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:58f8a252-1eb7-42aa-8a66-31f042b632dd&diff=5265 2020-10-25T17:07:08Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Reusing Biopsy Material in New Publications, Image Manipulation and Fraudulent Research Protocols<br /> |Is About=A scientist at a Danish research centre was accused of acting in a scientifically dishonest manner in a number of research papers. The practices included inaccurate descriptions of research participants, the undisclosed re-use of biopsy material and research subjects from previous studies, the manipulation of images, and the erroneous and misleading presentation of data. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for Health and Medical Sciences ruled that scientific dishonesty had been committed in four instances relating to four out of the twelve research papers. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=For research ethics committees and research integrity offices, this case report demonstrates the value of ensuring that case details are reported accurately, transparently and in significant detail, particularly when appeals are made by defendants regarding previous rulings. <br /> <br /> In terms of the specific practices of scientific dishonesty, the case demonstrates that:<br /> <br /> #Reusing biopsy material in order to support the conclusions of subsequent studies is a serious breach of good scientific practice if and when readers are not informed that an article is based on the results of previous studies;<br /> #Reusing biopsy material in order to support the conclusions of subsequent studies undermines the validity of these studies when the different studies are based on different population sizes and different methodologies;<br /> #Using the same images to represent different proteins is an instance of image manipulation even when the colours have been changed and the images rotated.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research Ethics Committees<br /> |Has Best Practice=Good scientific practice involves researchers providing explicit information on the origin of their test material in a way that is clear to readers of the paper. <br /> <br /> All authors of a scientific article have responsibility for its overall content, including reading the final manuscript carefully before submitting it to a journal.<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/councils-and-commissions/The-Danish-Committee-on-Research-Misconduct/decisions/2014/engelsk-anonymiseret-afgorelse-i-klage-af-19-juli-2011.pdf<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty; Danish Eastern High Court<br /> |Has Timepoint=2011-2015<br /> |Has Location=Denmark<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect; Reliability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Authorship; Publication Ethics; Image Manipulation; Allegation of Misconduct; Research Protocol Manipulation; Reusing Published Material; Reusing Published Data<br /> |Related To Research Area=Health Sciences<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:F8de9607-459e-41f5-908d-de63eb375ce8&diff=5264 2020-10-25T17:05:43Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Researchers Call For the Release of Findings of a Misconduct Investigation at Harvard<br /> |Is About=This case is about a psychologist who committed scientific misconduct and how Harvard has investigated this case. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=It is important that with cases like these, details are given about the investigation in order to gain trust.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100817/full/466908a.html<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2010<br /> |Has Location=USA; United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=Psychology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:18a89181-ee50-4dee-82c3-f44c4a7454dc&diff=5263 2020-10-25T17:04:46Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Researcher Accused of Breaching Research Ethics Faces GMC<br /> |Is About=A case about dishonoring reasearch ethics guidelines. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=Scientific research should be done ethically. It is important to respect people who participate in scientific research.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; research leaders; phd students<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.bmj.com/content/334/7605/1185<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2001<br /> |Has Location=United Kingdom; UK<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:2958e5c9-7d9e-44c9-aca0-7e3c0ad7afe8&diff=5262 2020-10-25T17:03:45Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Researcher 'Cherry Picked' Data, University Investigation Finds<br /> |Is About=This case is about a professor of biomedical engineering whose paper got retracted because only certain data points were reported that supported the paper's conclusion.<br /> |Important Because=Scientific fraud is not only about presenting false data, but also about not 'cherry picking' i.e. selecting certain data points to confirm or suport a specific hypothesis or make a result appear more spectacular.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Postdocs; PhD students; Graduate students<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/24/florida-researcher-cherry-picked-data-university-investigation-finds/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Retraction Watch<br /> |Has Timepoint=24-10-2017<br /> |Has Location=USA; United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Cherry picking; Misconduct Investigations; Physics Retractions; Data Issues<br /> |Related To Research Area=Medical engineering; Physical sciences<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:77483561-dded-4881-92ee-4226bce4fc9f&diff=5261 2020-10-25T17:02:32Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Research Integrity and Conflicts of Interest: The Case of Unethical Research-Misconduct Charges Filed by Edward Calabrese<br /> |Is About=The case discusses the relevance of better conflict of interests regulations in accepting a research misconduct allegation. An argument is provided that the U.S. research misconduct regulations are flawed in requiring research misconduct assessors/experts/accused, but not accusers, to reveal possible conflicts of interest (COI) that could affect research misconduct allegations.<br /> <br /> Rather than using peer-reviewed, scientific-journal literature to try to defend his account of hormesis against Shrader-Frechette’s scientific criticisms, on August 23, 2011 Calabrese instead filed RM charges against ShraderFrechette with her employer, the University of Notre Dame (UND). The UND Research Integrity Policy, like that of virtually all U.S. universities, is mandated by ORI. It requires that “upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct,” the university must “immediately assess the allegation.” Thus UND appointed a faculty committee to assess Calabrese’s allegations.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Policy makers; Research Integrity Officers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2012.700882?journalCode=gacr20<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2000; 2011<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Impartiality; Transparency<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Research Misconduct Investigation<br /> |Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences; LS 08.09 - Environmental toxicology at the population and ecosystems level<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:Af2f0202-71bd-4cf4-9213-8fb255e1674c&diff=5260 2020-10-25T16:59:00Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Research Ethics: Zero Tolerance<br /> |Is About=The paper presents the case of Zhejiang University in China where plagiarism, fabrication and falsification was discovered by the new president who is now educating about scientific integrity in China. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=There are no comprehensive statistics on the extent of research misconduct in China — and few ministries, agencies or universities make cases public. Surveys and anecdotal evidence, however, reveal a deep-rooted problem, and suggest that students are learning unethical behaviour alongside their science.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Journal publishers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/research-ethics-zero-tolerance-1.9756<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:1e1d90cf-ca7e-45d6-b9ba-c5e4791f6e8a<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:E30b6f25-2071-4f6c-80ed-7c22f9d0e4ab<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2008<br /> |Has Location=China<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:9391749b-7e69-4836-8892-c4a04dc337a9&diff=5259 2020-10-25T16:57:22Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Reflections on the Cleveland Clinic Study of The Batista Operation<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S0022-5223(01)41898-8/fulltext<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval; Informed consent; Institutional Responsibilities<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:09ef0e8f-dbdb-4de4-9a32-7a996aa6ff9a&diff=5258 2020-10-25T16:56:14Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Psychology Grad Student Faked Data<br /> |Is About=This case is about a former graduate student in psychology. He falsified data in several published papers and conference abstracts.<br /> |Important Because=It is important to realise that not only researchers, but also students can falsify data.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; PhD students; Graduate students<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/psychology-grad-student-faked-data-39650<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=7-3-2013<br /> |Has Location=USA; United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Image manipulation; Fabrication; False Data; Scientific Misdonduct; Scientific Fraud<br /> |Related To Research Area=Psychology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:1f1ce2ff-9a46-413e-a780-dda31b29fa71&diff=5257 2020-10-25T16:55:29Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Prominent Video Game-Violence Researcher Loses Another Paper to Retraction<br /> |Is About=This blog provides details about the retraction of a paper that was published in ''Current Opinion in Psychology.'' This retracted paper showed too much similarity with another manuscript that was published by the same author, Prof. Brad Bushman.<br /> |Important Because=It shows a clear case of self-plagiarism where both the plagiarised and plagiarising manuscripts were published in the same journal.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Journal editors<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2018/08/31/prominent-video-game-violence-researcher-loses-another-paper-to-retraction/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0;Theme:Ed7ce22e-667a-44a8-a3d0-2abdd0d37b1a<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=31-8-2018<br /> |Has Location=United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data Management; Duplication; Copyright; Research Misconduct; Falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=Psychology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:557a3563-4704-413c-80de-ccb5f8c0b748&diff=5256 2020-10-25T16:54:33Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Plagiarism Charge for Romanian Minister<br /> |Is About=This article is about allegations of plagiarism against the Romanian minister of education and research, Ioan Mang. Mr. Mang's 2004 publication is believed to be a near-identical copy of a paper authored by the Eli Biham, the dean of computer science at the Technion Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa.<br /> |Important Because=It shows a case of misconduct against a high-profile politician. It also shows that researchers' early publications might be scrutinised later on.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/plagiarism-charge-for-romanian-minister-1.10646<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2004<br /> |Has Location=Romania<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism<br /> |Related To Research Area=Computer and information sciences<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:1e62d4a2-f249-4b00-9629-3241a5e4d6e1&diff=5255 2020-10-25T16:53:36Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Perioperative Mischief: The Price of Academic Misconduct<br /> |Is About=This is an article about Don Poldermans, a well-known cardiology researcher who worked at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and was dismissed for scientific misconduct and fraud in 2012.<br /> |Important Because=The article may be used as a case study in the context of research integrity training.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; PhD students; Research integrity trainers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(12)00386-5/fulltext<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:4980e05d-80c0-4e23-9ff2-340f136edec4;Resource:226c89f1-a061-4bb0-8ec4-79583de2ddf0;Resource:88fb9129-4338-4bd3-a332-2e5eee03c598<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Location=The Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Center<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability; Trustworthiness<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Fraud; Misconduct Investigations<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:4ec91fbe-9ffb-403b-a20e-46cfb32f34af&diff=5254 2020-10-25T16:52:31Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Paxil Study Under Fire<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/articles/475153a<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=GSK; Evans<br /> |Has Timepoint=2001<br /> |Has Location=USA<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ghostwriting; Conflict of interest<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:4a159208-d033-47ed-9c78-d28231a1f866&diff=5253 2020-10-25T16:51:04Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Ousted: Rule-Breaking Lundbeck CEO and Novartis Scientist Get the Boot<br /> |Is About=This is a thick description of two different cases at two different drug companies. Lundbeck's boss, Ulf Wiinberg resigned after financial conflict of interests, and breaches of the company's code of conduct. A former Novartis researcher - Igor Dzura - committed research misconduct in 6 papers funded by various federal agencies in the USA.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Article/2014/11/25/Ousted-rule-breaking-Lundbeck-CEO-and-Novartis-scientist-get-the-boot<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2014; 2000 - 2006<br /> |Has Location=United States; Vanderbilt University; Novartis<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification; Retraction; Image manipulation; Graph manipulation<br /> |Related To Research Area=Pharmacology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:A5e7428e-3972-40b6-b410-cfde15e088d2&diff=5252 2020-10-25T16:50:04Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Misrepresenting the characteristics of research participants in psychiatric studies<br /> |Is About=In studies of anorexia, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Alexander Neumeister misrepresented the characteristics of his research subjects. Not only did he combine data from multiple research participants to construct fake participants, he instructed his staff to change, omit, or ignore clinical and psychiatric assessment data contained in electronic and/or written research records.&lt;ref&gt;https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/psychiatrist-engaged-research-misconduct-says-govt-watchdog/&lt;/ref&gt; This is a factual case.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=This case highlights many different ways in which clinical data and patient records can be manipulated to generate fake results.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/psychiatrist-engaged-research-misconduct-says-govt-watchdog/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=31-12-2019<br /> |Has Location=USA; United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Grant applications<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:Af266b39-20a3-4b97-a876-08eebb428fe6&diff=5251 2020-10-25T16:49:24Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Misconduct Ruling is Silent on Intent<br /> |Is About=Mavens of research ethics often insist that there is a clear difference between sloppy science and scientific fraud. But if ever there was a case that blurs that line, it is that of a high-flying evolutionary psychologist who resigned from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 2011, after the university found him guilty of misconduct&lt;ref&gt;Reich, Eugenie Samuel. &quot;Misconduct ruling is silent on intent.&quot; ''Nature'' 489.7415 (2012): 189.&lt;/ref&gt;. This is a factual case.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=The definition of misconduct can be interpreted in different ways.<br /> |Important For=researchers; phd students; research leaders<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/misconduct-ruling-is-silent-on-intent-1.11390<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2002; 2010<br /> |Has Location=USA; United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Misconduct; Falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=Psychology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:F243f440-69e9-44f8-b95a-5e0c2009f700&diff=5250 2020-10-25T16:48:23Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct - perspective of a research ethics board chair<br /> |Is About=Much had been written recently in the anesthesia literature about scientific misconduct, precipitated in large part by revelations and ongoing allegations of misconduct and that required retraction of more than 60 articles from the medical literature&lt;ref&gt;Hall, Richard I. &quot;Mea culpa: scientific misconduct.&quot; ''Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia'' 26.2 (2012): 181-185.&lt;/ref&gt;. In this article the writer wrote an opinion from the perspective of the chair of a research ethics board. This is a factual case.&lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=An article that contains false information, once published and even if retracted, often continues to be cited and included in reviews, lectures, and meta-analyses. These, in turn, could affect medical practice and public policy for considerable periods&lt;ref&gt;Hall, Richard I. &quot;Mea culpa: scientific misconduct.&quot; ''Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia'' 26.2 (2012): 181-185.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.jcvaonline.com/article/S1053-0770(11)00858-5/fulltext<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:A562c502-9648-4b90-b823-125bbb53e2b6&diff=5249 2020-10-25T16:47:23Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Lapses in Oversight Compromise Omics Results<br /> |Is About=Commentary on the Anil Potti case discussing relevant institutional changes in avoiding such misconduct. Potti was a researcher of cancer genomics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. His studies had linked changes in the expression of patients' genes with how they responded to cancer treatments, and independent statisticians had raised concerns about published papers linked to the work before clinical trials were initiated based on them. As the commentary highlights, there were a list of failures in the system of research oversight and integrity at the research institution, which must be corrected.<br /> |Important Because=It highlights the importance of institutional practices on research oversight and integrity that could serve as safeguards against research misconduct and other ethics failures.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Administrators; Ethics committee members; Policy makers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/lapses-in-oversight-compromise-omics-results-1.10298<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:5b8e9f7c-7c80-4aa5-9a01-cada03fe4533<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2006<br /> |Has Location=United Kingdom; Duke University<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Clinical trials; Retraction; Conflict of Interest; Research Environments; Research Misconduct<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine; LS 02 - Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:6db91721-501b-4ec2-aff7-a2c732c4806f&diff=5248 2020-10-25T16:46:28Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Jesse's Intent<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12739533<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1998 - 1999<br /> |Has Location=USA; United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:919c16ba-268c-4bf7-8a3a-2da003314524&diff=5247 2020-10-25T16:45:28Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Institutional Pathology and the Death of a Mentally Ill Young Man<br /> |Is About=A case about a mentally ill young man who stabbed himself to death in an industry-sponsored drug study. This is a factual case.<br /> |Important Because=Scientific research with participation of human beings should be done ethically. Recruiting procedures of the subjects, research oversight, adequate clinical care, and informed consent are of particular importance.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; health care professionals; Principal investigators<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2016.1246969?journalCode=gacr20<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:E1f32efa-98f0-4036-857b-441c15bb39da;Resource:08657792-f22e-486e-a034-c78fb9a2f39f;Resource:97d7c2bf-daa8-4162-9bae-5c94c9917384;Resource:A5e7428e-3972-40b6-b410-cfde15e088d2;Resource:6f86286f-e078-48ae-915d-33fa0702d502<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:D0ad4326-4faa-47bf-85ab-a3eb78cb6540;Theme:0bb5e4f7-9336-4ca8-92e3-c506413d1450;Theme:5e34933a-293e-447a-9ab4-9299a152e8a5<br /> |Related To Instruction=Instruction:312681e3-96e5-4ebe-85f7-6fa2947d1f4a<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2003 - 2015<br /> |Has Location=USA; United States<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability; Care; Respect; Responsibility<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety; REC approval; Consent; Drug Development; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine; SH 04.05 - Social and clinical psychology; LS 05 - Neurosciences and Neural Disorders; LS 05.12 - Psychiatric disorders (e.g. schizophrenia, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder); LS 07.11 - Medical ethics<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:69dad1bb-9632-43ed-b3c1-c49a1fcd8910&diff=5246 2020-10-25T16:43:42Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Industry involvement in scientific studies on SSRI's<br /> |Is About=This case is about scientific fraud in research concerning psychopharmacology. Specifically, it is about the use of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) group of antidepressants that has the potential to trigger suicidality in a subgroup of patients. This is a factual case, linked to companies' abilties to keep clinical trial data out of the public domain.<br /> |Important Because=The outcome of such research affects the lives of many patiens who use the SSRI's.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; research integrity researchers; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-003-0020-2<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:4d39f067-fb71-4d6b-b33b-3c27f0bd6414;Resource:Bbcc248c-0ac3-4405-a35b-67e2c34ea571;Resource:Bdaacb81-740f-4483-b0b5-870701ef887a<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Involves=Pfizer; University of Toronto<br /> |Has Timepoint=1990<br /> |Has Location=Canada<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Conflict of interest; Ghost authorship<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:535a2656-b83c-48c4-a91b-110aacacca43&diff=5245 2020-10-25T16:42:21Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Image Search Triggers Italian Police Probe<br /> |Is About=The case describes how an image manipulation scandal evolved in Italy. Enrico Bucci's company was offering publication of meta-analysis services. Bucci had detected the images of gel-electrophoresis analysis contained anomalies while conducting a global search to exclude contaminated literature from his database. A list of such papers were authored by Alfredo Fusco. Out of around 300 papers on which Fusco was first or last author, the team found 53 containing gels with potential irregularities, including one from as far back as 1985. After discovering that there was no academic organization in Italy that dealt with such findings, in February 2012 Bucci contacted the Milan police.<br /> |Important Because=This is a factual story that highlights how new image meta-analysis methods could help to find contaminated scientific literature.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/image-search-triggers-italian-police-probe-1.14295<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To}}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1985; 2008<br /> |Has Location=Italy<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Falsification<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine; LS 02 - Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:Dcdeef8f-3074-4acd-abdf-5f2835e52ebc&diff=5244 2020-10-25T16:41:11Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=How Earnest Research Into Gay Genetics Went Wrong<br /> |Is About=The case focuses on the complicated story of a genetic research on sexual orientation.<br /> |Important Because=It highlights the ethical challenges of designing and conducting genetics research, telling a real life story where research results start to live their life of their own, and how results might be used in unintended ways. Research could be misconstrued or wielded to advance harmful agendas. The story presents a broader and more systematic view of how scientists should think about their research beyond simply following existing legal requirements.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://www.wired.com/story/how-earnest-research-into-gay-genetics-went-wrong/<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:F7ed25ad-cfab-4040-b52f-596accc3c317<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=2017<br /> |Has Location=United Kingdom<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Accountability<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Big Data; Biobank<br /> |Related To Research Area=Health biotechnology<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:63435d54-ed0e-4d06-abdc-75a91b5a7661&diff=5243 2020-10-25T16:40:22Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=History, Ethics and the Presidential Commission on Research in Guatemala<br /> |Is About=.<br /> |Important For=Researchers<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://academic.oup.com/phe/article-abstract/7/3/211/1483697?redirectedFrom=fulltext<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1946<br /> |Has Location=Guatemala<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety; Equipoise; Informed consent; Vulnerable population<br /> |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:F64a535d-7159-4263-9f96-1166765a0133&diff=5242 2020-10-25T16:37:20Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=Harvard Scientists Disciplined for Not Declaring Ties to Drug Companies<br /> |Is About=This is a factual case about three child psychiatrists who failed to disclose consultancy fees that they received from pharmaceutical companies. Between 2000 and 2007, the three researchers received a combined total of $4.2 million from different companies. The three scientists claim that this was an honest mistake, and consequently were &quot;banned from participating in 'industry-sponsored outside activities' for one year, to be followed by a two-year period of close monitoring and a delay in consideration for promotion.&lt;ref&gt;Brian Owens. 2011. Nature news blog. (''Harvard Scientists Disciplined for Not Declaring Ties to Drug Companies : News Blog'', July 2011)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=It shows the limitations of policies about financial conflict of interests and how discrepencies between national and institutional policies could contribute to confusion. It also shows what consequences may follow from a lack of transparency about the received funds.<br /> |Important For=Researchers; Funders<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/07/harvard_scientists_disciplined.html<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=4-7-2011<br /> |Has Location=United States; Harvard Medical School; Massachusetts General Hospital<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of Interest<br /> |Related To Research Area=Basic Medicine; Health; Medicine<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof https://embassy.science:443/wiki-wiki/index.php?title=Resource:7bfab1c1-adcd-4e8b-b8e4-44f1f7b992c5&diff=5241 2020-10-25T16:36:16Z

<p>Marc.VanHoof: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Resource<br /> |Resource Type=Cases<br /> |Title=From Case Management to Prevention of Scientific Dishonesty in Denmark<br /> |Is About=In the 1990s, Denmark experienced cases of serious scientific fraud that had occurred many years ago. Some widely published cases from the United States motivated the Danish Medical Research Council to establish the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, a national committee covering the health sciences&lt;ref&gt;Andersen, Daniel. &quot;From case management to prevention of scientific dishonesty in Denmark.&quot; ''Science and engineering ethics'' 6.1 (2000): 25-34.&lt;/ref&gt;. This is a factual anonymized case.<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important Because=This case highlights the importance of involving diverse actors in misconduct investigations. The article explains that it was considered important to represent a broad spectrum of health sciences on the committee because decisions on honesty/dishonesty due to their inherently inexact and judgmental nature must reflect the general culture of the research environment.&lt;ref&gt;Andersen, Daniel. &quot;From case management to prevention of scientific dishonesty in Denmark.&quot; ''Science and engineering ethics'' 6.1 (2000): 25-34.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> |Important For=researchers; research leaders<br /> }}<br /> {{Link<br /> |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-000-0019-x<br /> }}<br /> {{Related To<br /> |Related To Resource=Resource:B2456a64-b3e1-4d36-866e-a3ba117633e9<br /> |Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd<br /> }}<br /> {{Tags<br /> |Has Timepoint=1992; 1994<br /> |Has Location=Denmark<br /> |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty<br /> |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism<br /> }}</div>

Marc.VanHoof