Summary
Scientists have the responsibility of judging what is best for the patient and the optimal conditions for the conduct of the study. All physicians should ensure that research they participate in is ethically conducted. Every clinician should learn and receive training in the responsible conduct of research and publication, and each project must be reviewed by an institutional review committee.
Scientific misconduct is defined as any practice that deviates from those accepted by the scientific community and ultimately damages the integrity of the research process. “Sloppy Research” and “Scientific Fraud” include activities which can violate science, records and publication. Sloppy research is due to absence of appropriate training in research discipline and methodologies. In contrast, scientific fraud is defined as deliberate action during application, performance of research, and publication. It includes piracy, plagiarism and fraud.
Research institutions should adopt rules and regulations to respond to allegations, start investigational operations and perform appropriate sanctions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altman L, Melcher L (1983) Fraud in science. Brit Med J 286: 2003–2006.
American College of Physicians (1998) Ethics Manual 4th edn. Ann Intern Med 128: 576–594.
Andersen D, Attrup L, Axelsen N, Riis P (1992) Scientific dishonesty and good clinical practice. Published by the Danish Medical Research Council.
Angell M (1986) Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann Int Med 104: 261–262.
Angell M, Relman AS (1988) Fraud in biomedical research: a time for congressional restraint. NEJM 318: 1462–1463.
Culver CM, Clouser KD, Gert B, Brody H, Fletcher J, Jonsen A, Kopelman L, Lynn J, Siegler M, Wikler D (1985) Special report: basic curricular goals in medical ethics. NEJM 312: 253–256.
Darsee Affair (1983) Retractions. New Engl J Med 308: 1400.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (1991) First annual report: scientific misconduct investigations reviewed by office scientific integrity review, March 1989-Dec 1990. Office of Scientific Integrity Review, Washington DC, USA.
Erkut S, Mokros JR (1984) Professors as “models” and “mentors” for college students. Am Educ Res J 21: 399–417.
Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication (2000) In: Jones AH, McLellan F (eds) The Johns Hopkins Univ Press.
Freedman B (1987) Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB 9: 7–10.
Gunsalus CK (1999) The Baltimore case: a trial of politics, science and character. In: Kevles DJ (ed) (Book review). NEJM 340: 242.
Harvard Medical School (1988) Guidelines for investigators in scientific research. Cambridge Massachusetts.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA 277: 927–934.
Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ (1992) Clinical ethics, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill.
Karasz F (1996) Publication ethics and basic sciences. Symposium Proceedings on Publication Ethics. Published by TUBI- TAK, Ankara.
Petersdorf RG (1982) Preventing and investigating fraud in research. J Med Educ 57: 880–881.
Petersdorf RG (1986) The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science. Ann Int Med 107: 252–254.
Relman AS (1985) Dealing with conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 313: 749–751.
Responsible Science (1992) Ensuring the integrity of the research process, vol. I. Prepared and published by the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Washington DC.
Shapiro MF, Charrow RP (1985) Scientific misconduct in investigational drug trials. NEJM 312: 731–736.
Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Lewis KS (1993) Ethical problems in academic research. Am Scie 81: 542–553.
Thompson DF (1993) Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 329: 573–576.
Woolf PK (1986) Pressure to publish and fraud in science. Ann Int Med 104: 254–256.
World Medical Association (2000) Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 283: 3043–3045.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer- Verlag Wien New York
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kansu, E., Ruacan, S. (2002). Research Ethics and Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research. In: Kanpolat, Y. (eds) Research and Publishing in Neurosurgery. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplements, vol 83. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6743-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6743-4_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-7399-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-6743-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive