Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 175–184 | Cite as

A Rhetorical Analysis of Apologies for Scientific Misconduct: Do They Really Mean It?

Original Paper

Abstract

Since published acknowledgements of scientific misconduct are a species of image restoration, common strategies for responding publicly to accusations can be expected: from sincere apologies to ritualistic apologies. This study is a rhetorical examination of these strategies as they are reflected in choices in language: it compares the published retractions and letters of apology with the letters that charge misconduct. The letters are examined for any shifts in language between the charge of misconduct and the response to the charge in order to assess whether the apology was sincere or ritualistic. The results indicate that although most authors’ published acknowledgments of scientific misconduct seem to minimize culpability by means of the strategic use of language, their resulting ritualistic apologies often still satisfy in some way the accusers’ (and thus their community’s) concerns.

Keywords

Rhetoric Apology Research misconduct Ethics 

References

  1. Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2), 242–250.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, C. (2006). Taking the sincerity out of saying sorry: Restorative justice as ritual. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23(2), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit, W. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brand-Miller, J., & Colagiuri, S. (2004). To the editor. Metabolism, 53(2), 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahlberg, J. E., & Mahler, C. C. (2006). The Poehlman case: Running away from the truth. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, P. (2002). On apologies. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 19(2), 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eremin, O. E. (1999). Notice. The Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, 44(6), 41. http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/Journal/vol44_6/4460041.htm.
  8. Fisher, R. S. (2003). Retraction for misappropriation. Epilepsia, 44(11), 1463.Google Scholar
  9. Huang, G., Chou, Y., & Su, F. (2003). Retraction of “Gait analysis and energy consumption of below-knee amputees wearing three different prosthetic feet” [gait and posture 12 (2000) 162–168]. Gait & Posture, 18(3), 124.Google Scholar
  10. Interlandi, J. (2006, October 22). An unwelcome discovery. New York Times Magazine, p. 98.Google Scholar
  11. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2009). Corrections, retractions and “expressions of concern”, uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. http://www.icmje.org/. Accessed 5 January 2009.
  12. Kiang, N. Y. (1995). How are scientific corrections made. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kihara, S. M. D., & Brimacombe, J. R. (2004). Two manuscripts, too similar. Anesthesiology, 101(3), 801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, C. (2006). Apology to the journal. Neurochemical Research, 31(10), 1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kopp, W. (2004). Reply: High insulinogenic nutrition—an etiologic factor for obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Metabolism, 53(2), 264–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lajtha, A. (2006). Apology to the journal. Neurochemical Research, 31(10), 1295.Google Scholar
  17. Lerman, J., & Crawford, M. (2004). Two manuscripts, too similar. Anesthesiology, 101(3), 801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oliver, C. W. (1999). Letter of apology from Mr. C. W. Oliver. The Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, 44(6), 4. http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/Journal/vol44_6/4460041.htm.Google Scholar
  19. Parrish, D. M. (1999). Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature. Academic Medicine, 74, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1420.Google Scholar
  21. Poehlman, E. T. (2005). To the editor. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(9), 798.Google Scholar
  22. Redman, B. K. Yarandi, H. N., & Merz, J. F. (2008, November). Empirical developments in retraction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 807–809.Google Scholar
  23. Ruegg, S. (2003). Letter of apology. Epilepsia, 44(11), 1463.Google Scholar
  24. Ryan, H. R. (1982). Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 254–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sox, H. C. (2005). Notice of retraction: Final resolution. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(9), 798.Google Scholar
  26. Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(8), 609–613.Google Scholar
  27. Thomsen, M., & Resnik, D. (1995). The effectiveness of the erratum in avoiding error propagation in physics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(3), 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tobin, M. J. (2000). Reporting research, retraction of results, and responsibility. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 162, 773–774.Google Scholar
  29. van Alphen, E., Bal, M., & Smith, C. (2009). The rhetoric of sincerity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Walton, D. N. (1996). Arguments from ignorance. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Culture and CommunicationDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations