Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:02:40.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Off with their Heads: The Need to Criminalize some forms of Scientific Misconduct

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Barbara K. Redman  and
Arthur L. Caplan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An increasingly long line of high-profile scientific misconduct cases raises the question of whether regulatory policy ought to incorporate more rigorous sanctions for investigators and their institutions. Broad and Wade graphically describe these cases through the early 1980s. They continue to recent times with the cases of Evan Dreyer, Kimon Angelides and Robert Liburdy, Justin Radolf, and others. In addition, recent Congressional investigation into conflict of interest concerns surrounding consulting by National Institutes of Health scientists has raised further questions about ethical standards. The record of continuing scandal suggests that current policy may not be optimal for controlling scientific misconduct. Would an alternative policy better minimize its incidence and associated costs?

What should we expect of public policy governing misconduct by American scientists? Surely the public has a right to presume that its tax money is being spent wisely and that any economic rewards from taxpayer funded research are used prudently and in the public interest.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , Summer 2005 , pp. 345 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Broad, W. and Wade, N., Betrayers of the Truth (New York: Touchtone, 1982): 225–232.Google Scholar
Dalton, R., “Private Investigations,” Nature 411 (200l):129–130, at 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockwell, T., “Scientific Integrity and Mainstream Science,” The Scientist 14, no. 5 (March 6, 2000): 39.Google Scholar
Malakoff, D., “The Multiple Repercussions of a Fudged Grant Application,” Science 300 (2003): 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, J., “Feeling the Heat, NIH Tightens Conflict-of-interest Rules,” Science 305 (2004):25–26, at 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, M. and Panicker, S., “Ethics for All: Differences Across Scientific Society Codes,” Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2003):159–170, at 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mello, M. and Brennan, T. A., “Due Process in Investigations of Research Misconduct,” New England Journal of Medicine 349 (2003): 1280–1286, at 1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
42 C.F.R. section 50.102Google Scholar
Reyolds, G. H., “Thank God for the Lawyers; Some Thoughts on the (Mis)regulation of Scientific Misconduct,” Tennessee Law Review 66 (1999): 801–818, at 802.Google Scholar
Greenberg, D. S., Science, Money and Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001): at 2.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine, Integrity in Scientific Research (Washington: National Academy Press, 2002): at 13, 41, 130.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T., “Defense of the Common Morality,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (2003):259–274, at 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodwin, M. A., Medicine, Money and Morals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993): at XVI.Google Scholar
Bok, S., Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1999): at 18.Google Scholar
Mishkin, B., “Scientific Research, Law and Penalties for Scientific Misconduct,” in Murray, T. H. and Mehlmann, M. J., eds. Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues in Biotechnology (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000): At 1051.Google Scholar
Kuzma, S. M., “Criminal Liability for Misconduct in Scientific Research,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 25 (1992): 357–421, at 395, 403.Google Scholar
Riis, P., “Prevention and Management of Fraud – in Theory,” Journal of Internal Medicine 235 (1994):107–113, at 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Mello, , supra note 7.Google Scholar
Friedly, J., “ORI's Self-Assessment: A Batting Average of 920?” Science 275 (1997): 1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenning, T. M., “Fraud Offers Big Rewards for Relatively Little Risk,” Nature 427 (2004): 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kuzma, , supra note 16.Google Scholar
See Kuzma, , supra note 16.Google Scholar
Callahan, D., What Price Better Health? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003): at 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar