Ethics in Science - D'Angelo, John

. .

Résumé :
Providing the tools necessary for a robust debate, this fully revised and updated second edition of Ethics in Science: Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research explains various forms of scientific misconduct....

Biographie:

Stony Brook University, Bachelor of Science (BS), Chemistry, 1996 - 2000

The University of Connecticut, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Chemistry, 2000 - 2005

Postdoctoral Research Associate, Johns Hopkins University,2005 - 2007

Alfred University, NY, August 2007 - Present

John D'Angelo teaches the following courses: Organic Chemistry I & II and associated labs...

Sommaire:

Scientific misconduct in research: What is it, why does it happen, and how do we identify when it happens?

• What constitutes scientific misconduct?
• Authorship and intellectual property.
• Bad ethics vs. bad science.
• New results that prove old results wrong.
• The whistle-blower's dilemma.

What are the penalties for scientific misconduct?

• Human and animal subjects.

What is peer review's role in scientific misconduct?

• Revisiting Vlad and Frankie.
• Can peer reviewers be unethical?
• What effect on the public does scientific misconduct have?
• MMR and autism.
• Climategate.
• HIV vaccine.
• Animal rights groups.
• Cold fusion.
• Bernard Kettlewell.
• Electromagnetic field and high-tension power lines.
• Fracking and pollution.

What constitutes responsible conduct from the point+A76 of view of human and animal subjects in research?

The ethics of the pharmaceutical industry.

Science and the public.

The role of government in scientific misconduct?

The responsibility of science to the environment.

Is there some research that shouldn't be done because of threats the results may pose to society?

Summary of ethics guidelines of STEM professional societies.

Can Scientific misconduct be prevented?

• Intentional negligence in acknowledgment of previous work.
• Deliberate fabrication of data.
• Deliberate omission of known data that doesn't agree with hypotheses.
• Passing another researcher's data as one's own.
• Publication of results without consent of all the researchers.
• Failure to acknowledge all the researchers who performed the work.
• Conflict-of-interest issues.
• Repeated publication of too-similar results.
• Breach of confidentiality.
• Misrepresenting others' work.
• Wrapping up.
• Case Studies.
• Darwin and Wallace.
• Rangaswamy Srinivasan-VISX patent dispute.
• Schwartz and Mirkin.
• Corey and Woodward.
• C?rdova, Scripps Research Institute, and Stockholm University.
• La Clair and hexacyclinol.
• Woodward and quinine.
• DNA.
• David Baltimore and Teresa Imanishi-Kari.
• John Fenn-Yale patent dispute.
• VIOXX?.

Index.