Difference between revisions of "Resource:A9e1f468-b56b-4ae5-91fe-20024d43e154"
From The Embassy of Good Science
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control | |Title=Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control | ||
| − | |Is About=This | + | |Is About=This case study analyses a case of serious scientific misconduct by a transplantation surgeon that took place for several years at a famous research institution. The case is analyzed from three different perspectives and describes how the misconduct could go on due to the reputation of the perpetrator and the commercial interests of the research institute. <references /> |
| − | <references /> | + | |Important Because=As noted in this case study, the incidence of scientific misconduct is on the rise.<ref>Karabag, S.F., Berggren, C., 2016.Misconduct,marginality and editorialpractices inmanagement, businessand economics journals.PLoS One 11(7), e0159492</ref> This case study describes some of the factors that contribute to a working climate in which scientific misconduct is possible. Firstly, the case study shows that the commercial mindset at the management level of a research institute may lead to the silencing of whistle-blowers and the sustainment of scientific misconduct. Secondly, the lack of well-organized regulation, both in the case of the research institute and the editorial board of the journals, also contributes to a working culture in which misconduct can take place. Finally, the case study highlights the important role that the media played in the reveal of the scientific misconduct in this case. Furthermore, this case also graphically describes the consequences that scientific misconduct may have for the health of the patients and research subjects. <br /><references /> |
| − | |Important Because=<br /><references /> | ||
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research; phd students | |Important For=researchers; research leaders; All stakeholders in research; phd students | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 17: | Line 16: | ||
|Has Timepoint=2010 | |Has Timepoint=2010 | ||
|Has Location=Sweden | |Has Location=Sweden | ||
| − | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability | + | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Reliability; Accountability; Transparency; Autonomy |
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; REC approval | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; REC approval | ||
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 17:52, 28 June 2021
ResourcesCases
Scientific Misconduct at an Elite Medical Institute: The Role of Competing Institutional Logics and Fragmented Control
What is this about?
This case study analyses a case of serious scientific misconduct by a transplantation surgeon that took place for several years at a famous research institution. The case is analyzed from three different perspectives and describes how the misconduct could go on due to the reputation of the perpetrator and the commercial interests of the research institute.
Why is this important?
As noted in this case study, the incidence of scientific misconduct is on the rise.[1] This case study describes some of the factors that contribute to a working climate in which scientific misconduct is possible. Firstly, the case study shows that the commercial mindset at the management level of a research institute may lead to the silencing of whistle-blowers and the sustainment of scientific misconduct. Secondly, the lack of well-organized regulation, both in the case of the research institute and the editorial board of the journals, also contributes to a working culture in which misconduct can take place. Finally, the case study highlights the important role that the media played in the reveal of the scientific misconduct in this case. Furthermore, this case also graphically describes the consequences that scientific misconduct may have for the health of the patients and research subjects.
- ↑ Karabag, S.F., Berggren, C., 2016.Misconduct,marginality and editorialpractices inmanagement, businessand economics journals.PLoS One 11(7), e0159492
