1887

Life after Misconduct: Promoting Rehabilitation while Minimizing Damage

    Author: Janet D. Stemwedel1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Philosophy, San José State University, San José, CA 95192-0096
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 15 December 2014
    • Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Philosophy, San José State University, One Washington Square, San José, CA 95192-0096. Phone: 408-924-4521. E-mail: janet. [email protected].
    • ©2014 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2014 vol. 15 no. 2 177-180. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.827
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    161.59 Kb
  • HTML
    30.06 Kb
  • XML

    Abstract:

    The scientific community has an interest in dealing with misconduct, but also in providing a path to rehabilitation in the aftermath of misconduct. The prospect of rehabilitation could minimize harms by improving reporting of misconduct, rebuilding damaged trust, and providing more insight into the conditions that led to unethical behavior, allowing scientists to work collectively to create conditions in which scientific misconduct is less likely.

Key Concept Ranking

Lead
0.6003691
Inclusions
0.555
Canning
0.50606966
0.6003691

References & Citations

1. Adams D, Pimple KD 2005 Research misconduct and crime: lessons from criminal science on preventing misconduct and promoting integrity Account Res. 12 3 225 240 10.1080/08989620500217495 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989620500217495
2. Couzin J 2006 Truth and consequences Science 313 1222 1226 10.1126/science.313.5791.1222 16946046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.313.5791.1222
3. Davis M, Riske-Morris M, Diaz S 2007 Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: evidence from ORI case files Sci. Eng. Ethics 13 4 395 414 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2 18038194 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2
4. De Vries R, Anderson MS, Martinson BC 2006 Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 1 1 43 50 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43 16810336 1483899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43
5. Gunsalus CK 1998 How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards Sci. Eng. Ethics 4 1 51 64 10.1007/s11948-998-0007-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-998-0007-0
6. List CJ 1985 Scientific fraud: social deviance or the failure of virtue? Sci. Technol. Human Values 10 4 27 36 10.1177/016224398501000403 11649815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224398501000403
7. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, Crain AL, De Vries R 2006 Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 1 1 51 66 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51 16810337 1483900 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.827
2014-12-15
2019-08-18

Abstract:

The scientific community has an interest in dealing with misconduct, but also in providing a path to rehabilitation in the aftermath of misconduct. The prospect of rehabilitation could minimize harms by improving reporting of misconduct, rebuilding damaged trust, and providing more insight into the conditions that led to unethical behavior, allowing scientists to work collectively to create conditions in which scientific misconduct is less likely.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/15/2/jmbe-15-177.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.827&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error