Difference between revisions of "Resource:15de5331-8dc3-4dba-8b81-5abcb412e698"
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud | |Title=The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud | ||
| − | |Is About=This | + | |Is About=This factual case discusses the consequences of various occasions of scientific misconduct, such as data fabrication. This report takes a different approach to most reports on scientific misconduct as it focuses on the consequences for collaborators and colleagues on a personal level, rather than the consequences for the perpetrator, the scientific community or science in general. |
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| − | |Important Because=<br /> | + | |Important Because=Although the detrimental consequences of scientific misconduct on a community-wide level are well known, the aftermath on a more personal level is only sparsely described. As this case shows, the careers of supervisors, co-workers and students may be seriously damaged by the deeds of the perpetrator. This could potentially affect the willingness of aspiring scientists to report scientific misconduct. In addition, the present case carefully sketches the problematic situation of potential whistle-blowers. On the one hand, graduate students, post-docs, and other lab personnel are obliged to inform the authorities of potential scientific misconduct by their principal investigator. On the other hand, blowing the whistle may cause them to lose their jobs. A better understanding of the factors influencing these decisions and the personal consequences of scientific misconduct may aid us in creating a scientific community that is safer for whistle-blowers and conducts more honest science. <br /> |
<references /> | <references /> | ||
|Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research; Editors; Students; Journals | |Important For=Researchers; All stakeholders in research; Editors; Students; Journals | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Related To | {{Related To | ||
| − | |Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd | + | |Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c |
}} | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
Latest revision as of 16:31, 19 August 2021
ResourcesThe Aftermath of Scientific Fraud
What is this about?
This factual case discusses the consequences of various occasions of scientific misconduct, such as data fabrication. This report takes a different approach to most reports on scientific misconduct as it focuses on the consequences for collaborators and colleagues on a personal level, rather than the consequences for the perpetrator, the scientific community or science in general.
Why is this important?
Although the detrimental consequences of scientific misconduct on a community-wide level are well known, the aftermath on a more personal level is only sparsely described. As this case shows, the careers of supervisors, co-workers and students may be seriously damaged by the deeds of the perpetrator. This could potentially affect the willingness of aspiring scientists to report scientific misconduct. In addition, the present case carefully sketches the problematic situation of potential whistle-blowers. On the one hand, graduate students, post-docs, and other lab personnel are obliged to inform the authorities of potential scientific misconduct by their principal investigator. On the other hand, blowing the whistle may cause them to lose their jobs. A better understanding of the factors influencing these decisions and the personal consequences of scientific misconduct may aid us in creating a scientific community that is safer for whistle-blowers and conducts more honest science.
