Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific reasoning and due process

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent public hearings on misconduct charges belie the conjecture that due process will perforce defeat informed scientific reasoning. One notable case that reviewed an obtuse description of experimental methods displays some of the subtleties of differentiating carelessness from intent to deceive. There the decision of a studious nonscientist panel managed to reach sensible conclusions despite conflicting expert testimony. The significance of such a result may be to suggest that to curtail due process would be both objectionable and unproductive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hamilton D P (1991) Richards panel: out of the loop?Science 252: 1606–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson C (1992) FBI investigates NIH leaks.Nature 356: 186.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hamilton D P (1991) Can OSI withstand a scientific backlash?Science 253: 1084–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aldhous P (1991) FASEB rejects OSI rules.Nature 352: 651.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Editorial (1991) Even misconduct trials should be fair.Nature 350: 259–260.

  6. 57 Fed. Reg. 53125 (Nov. 6, 1992).

  7. In re Popovic, Research Integrity Adjudications Panel, Departmental Appeals Board No. A-93-100, Department of Health and Human Services, Decision No. 1446, November 3, 1993.

  8. Popovic M, Sarngadharan M, Read E, and Gallo R C (1984) Detection, isolation, and continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS.Science 224: 497–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson C (1994) The aftermath of the Gallo case.Science 263: 20–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 42 C.F.R. § 50.102.

  11. Burd S (1993) Fraud office in trouble.The Chronicle of Higher Education. November 24, 1993, p. A21.

  12. National Academy of Sciences. Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (1992)Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Ethics, Harvard Medical School, 641 Huntington Avenue, 02115, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Louis M. Guenin

  2. the Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical School, USA

    Bernard D. Davis (Late)

Authors
  1. Louis M. Guenin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernard D. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guenin, L.M., Davis, B.D. Scientific reasoning and due process. Sci Eng Ethics 2, 47–54 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02639317

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02639317

Keywords

Search

Navigation