» Articles » PMID: 24935246

No One Likes a Snitch

Overview
Journal Sci Eng Ethics
Date 2014 Jun 18
PMID 24935246
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Whistleblowers remain essential as complainants in allegations of research misconduct. Frequently internal to the research team, they are poorly protected from acts of retribution, which may deter the reporting of misconduct. In order to perform their important role, whistleblowers must be treated fairly. Draft regulations for whistleblower protection were published for public comment almost a decade ago but never issued (Dahlberg 2013). In the face of the growing challenge of research fraud, we suggest vigorous steps, to include: organizational responsibility to certify the accuracy of research including audit, required whistleblower action in the face of imminent or grave harm to subjects, strengthened legal protections against retaliation including prompt enactment of Federal whistleblower protections and consideration of criminalizing the most egregious cases of research misconduct.

Citing Articles

How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing.

Vie K Life Sci Soc Policy. 2020; 16(1):6.

PMID: 32761302 PMC: 7409624. DOI: 10.1186/s40504-020-00102-6.


Criminalization of scientific misconduct.

Bulow W, Helgesson G Med Health Care Philos. 2018; 22(2):245-252.

PMID: 30155851 PMC: 6499870. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-018-9865-7.


Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science.

Pickett J, Roche S Sci Eng Ethics. 2017; 24(1):151-171.

PMID: 28281156 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9886-2.

References
1.
Richman V, Richman A . A tale of two perspectives: regulation versus self-regulation. A financial reporting approach (from Sarbanes-Oxley) for research ethics. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011; 18(2):241-6. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9260-8. View

2.
Smith R . Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author. BMJ. 2005; 331(7511):288-91. PMC: 1181274. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.331.7511.288. View

3.
Pascal C . Complainant issues in research misconduct: the office of research integrity experience. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2006; 231(7):1264-70. DOI: 10.1177/153537020623100712. View

4.
Interlandi J . An unwelcome discovery. Walter DeNino was a young lab technician who analyzed data for his mentor, Eric Poehlman. What he found was that Poehlman was not the scientist he appeared to be. N Y Times Mag. 2006; :98-103. View

5.
Wright D . Accountability in research: policies and quality assurance. Guest editorial. Account Res. 2013; 20(5-6):287-90. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822225. View