Difference between revisions of "Resource:Eebd576d-35d6-479d-bbbd-364f431d287f"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=Research integrity: Sabotage! |Is About=. |Important Because=. Journal Factual |Important For=Researchers }} {{Link |Has Link=ht...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=Research | + | |Title=Research Integrity: Sabotage! |
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=This blog presents the factual case of a post doc researcher who systematically sabotaged the experiments of a graduate student in his lab in order to ‘get ahead’. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | |Important Because=The type of research misconduct presented here, although not frequently encountered, is not unique. |
| + | The case is significant for several reasons. First, it suggests that a research ethics body may not always have descriptions and labels to cover every single possible type of potential research misconduct. | ||
| − | + | Second, it is worth keeping in mind that more junior researchers may hesitate to put a complaint about their seniors’ behaviour, or generally, question and challenge ‘authority’. | |
| − | + | Third, the case shows that consequences for such type of behaviour can be very costly for everyone directly or indirectly involved: perpetrators, their colleagues, the scientific research society and the wider society in general. The costs can be personal in terms or reputation and career consequences as well as wider in terms of public trust and monetary costs. | |
| − | |Important For=Researchers | + | |Important For=Researchers; Senior researchers; Junior researchers |
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
Latest revision as of 17:46, 26 October 2020
ResourcesCases
Research Integrity: Sabotage!
What is this about?
This blog presents the factual case of a post doc researcher who systematically sabotaged the experiments of a graduate student in his lab in order to ‘get ahead’.
Why is this important?
The type of research misconduct presented here, although not frequently encountered, is not unique.
The case is significant for several reasons. First, it suggests that a research ethics body may not always have descriptions and labels to cover every single possible type of potential research misconduct.
Second, it is worth keeping in mind that more junior researchers may hesitate to put a complaint about their seniors’ behaviour, or generally, question and challenge ‘authority’.
Third, the case shows that consequences for such type of behaviour can be very costly for everyone directly or indirectly involved: perpetrators, their colleagues, the scientific research society and the wider society in general. The costs can be personal in terms or reputation and career consequences as well as wider in terms of public trust and monetary costs.
