Abstract
The preceding chapters have covered some of the ever-growing work spectrum a biomedical engineering professional can be expected to involve with. Nevertheless, this would be sufficient to describe the significant as well as the encompassing role of the profession in the biomedical and life sciences field. From this perspective, it is then essential that not only for a biomedical engineering professional to have an inherent sound ethical value system but also for the organisation which employs the former. Known misconduct cases like that of the bioscience researcher, Hwang Woo Suk (Kakuk 2009) and the physical researcher, Jan Hendrik Schon (Reich 2009) have shown to have jeopardised any organisations associated with that individual. In addition, with the advances of media technology and the accessibility as well as popularity of social media platforms, the general public is becoming more aware of such incidences at a much quicker pace. Inevitably, the way in which misconduct is policed and corrected will very much reflect the integrity of the organisation and possibly the governmental regulatory bodies as a whole. Thus, the time frame between a misconduct case occurring and the case being known to the general community is diminishing, especially for the prominent ones. Essentially, the expectation for an organisation and/or the regulatory bodies to highlight a misconduct case or even a suspected case has become more apparent and at times, can be rather pressing. In fact, organisations and/or regulatory bodies should clarify any misconduct case at the soonest interval as the details provided by any unofficial source can sometimes induce negative yet unfounded elements to the incidence.
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aschwanden C (2007) Seeking an international dialogue on research integrity. Cell 131:9–11
Atlas MC (2004) Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. J Med Libr Assoc 9:242–250
Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials – comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465
Chen Y, Narayanswamy B, Chew M (2009) Polyurethane hydrogel colored contact lens with gradient water content. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 89:576, Retraction in: J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 89:576
Committee on Publication Ethics (2010) Consensus statement on the adoption of the COPE guidelines. Ann Surg 252:2
Committee on Publication Ethics (2011) About COPE [Internet] [Cited 12 Dec 2011]. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/about
Dong YH, Zhang XF, Soo HM, Greenberg EP, Zhang LH (2005) The two-component response regulator PprB modulates quorum-sensing signal production and global gene expression in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol Microbiol 56:1287–1301, Retraction in: Pugsley A (2008) Mol Microbiol 69:780
Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, Decullier E, Easterbrook PJ, Von Elm E, Gamble C, Ghersi D, Ioannidis JP, Simes J, Williamson PR (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 3:e3081
Etter JF, Stapleton J (2009) Citations to trials of nicotine replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-impact-factor journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2009(62):831–837
Fanelli D (2010) Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States data. PLoS One 5:e10271
Foo JYA (2011) Trend of tainted publications and their authors’ publication profile: a review of Singapore based on PubMed database. Int J Ethics 7(2):article 3.
Foo JY, Wilson SJ (2012) An analysis on the research ethics cases managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) between 1997 and 2010. Sci Eng Ethics 18:621–631. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9273-3
Godge MR, Purkayastha A, Dasgupta I, Kumar PP (2008) Virus-induced gene silencing for functional analysis of selected genes. Plant Cell Rep 27:209–219, Retraction in: Plant Cell Rep (2009) 28:335
Heng BC (2007) Is it ethically justifiable to cryopreserve oocytes and ovarian tissues of healthy women not facing premature ovarian failure, but seeking to extend their biological clocks? Hum Fertil 10:49–50, Retraction in: Hum Fertil 10:193
Huang Q, Wu YT, Tan HL, Ong CN, Shen HM (2009) A novel function of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 in modulation of autophagy and necrosis under oxidative stress. Cell Death Differ 16:264–277, Retraction in: Cell Death Differ (2010) 17:1944
Kakuk P (2009) The legacy of the Hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences. Sci Eng Ethics 15:545–562
Kleinert S (2010a) Singapore embraces international research integrity. Lancet 376:400–401
Kleinert S (2010b) Singapore statement: a global agreement on responsible research conduct. Lancet 376:1125–1127
Leimu R, Koricheva J (2005) What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends Ecol Evol 20:28–32
Li CM, Cha CS (2004a) Porous carbon composite/enzyme glucose microsensor. Front Biosci 9:3479–3485
Li CM, Cha CS (2004b) Porous carbon composite/enzyme glucose microsensor. Front Biosci 9:3324–3330
Lu L, Yu L, Kwang J (2007a) Baculovirus surface-displayed hemagglutinin of H5N1 influenza virus sustains its authentic cleavage, hemagglutination activity, and antigenicity. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 358:404–409, Retraction in: Biochem Biophys Res Commun (2009) 388:620
Lu J, Wang XJ, Yang X, Ching CB (2007b) Characterization and selective crystallization of famotidine polymorphs. J Pharm Sci 96:2457–2468, Retraction in: Lu J, Wang XJ, Yang X, Ching CB (2008) J Pharm Sci 97:1629
Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737–738
Marusic M, Marusic A (2007) Threats to the integrity of the Croatian Medical Journal. Croat Med J 48:779–785
Murtaugh PA (2002) Journal quality, effect size, and publication bias in metaanalysis. Ecology 2002(83):1162–1166
Reich ES (2009) The rise and fall of a physics fraudster. Phys World 22:24–29
Smith R (2005) Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author. BMJ 331:288–291
Sox HC, Rennie D (2006) Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med 144:609–613
Srikanth S, Nagaraja AV (2005) A prospective study of reversible dementias: frequency, causes, clinical profile and results of treatment. Neurol India 53:291–294, Retraction in: Neurol India (2007) 55:5
Titus SL, Wells JA, Rhoades LJ (2008) Repairing research integrity. Nature 453:980–982
Wager E (2010) The committee on publication ethics flowcharts. Chest 137:221–223
Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S (2009a) Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croat Med J 50:532–535
Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S (2009b) Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics. J Crit Care 24:620–622
Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S (2009c) Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas 64:201–203
Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S (2009d) Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Front Matter 10:1–6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Foo, J.Y.A. (2013). Whistle-Blowing: An Option or an Obligation?. In: Ethics for Biomedical Engineers. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6913-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6913-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6912-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6913-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)