This paper discusses the criminalization of scientific misconduct, as discussed and defended in the bioethics literature. In doing so it argues against the claim that fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) together identify the most serious forms of misconduct, which hence ought to be criminalized, whereas other forms of misconduct should not. Drawing the line strictly at FFP is problematic both in terms of what is included and what is excluded. It is also argued that the criminalization of scientific misconduct, despite its anticipated benefits, is at risk of giving the false impression that dubious practices falling outside the legal regulation “do not count”. Some doubts are also raised concerning whether criminalization of the most serious forms of misconduct will lower the burdens for universities or successfully increase research integrity. Rather, with or without criminalization, other measures must be taken and are probably more important in order to foster a more healthy research environment.
Anderson, Christopher J., Štěpán Bahník, Michael Barnett-Cowan, Frank A. Bosco, Jesse Chandler, and Cristopher R. Chartier, et al. 2016. Response to comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. Science 351: 1037. CrossRef
Bhutta, Zulfiqar A., and Crane, Julian. 2014. Should research fraud be a crime? BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4532.
Casadevall, Arturo, and Ferric C. Fang. 2012. Winner takes all. Scientific American 307: 13–17. CrossRef
Duff, Antony. 2014. Towards a modest legal moralism. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8: 217–235. CrossRef
Eriksson, Stefan and Gert Helgesson. 2013. Publiceringsetik [Publication ethics]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Fanelli, Daniele. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
Feinberg, Joel. 1984. The moral limits of the criminal law. Vol. 1, Harm to others. New York: Oxford University Press.
Forsman, Birgitta. 2009. Tandlöst förslag mot forskningsfusk [Lame proposal against scientific misconduct]. Forskning & framsteg. http://www.fof.se/tidning/2009/1/tandlost-forslag-mot-forskningsfusk. Accessed 15 June 2018.
Francis, Gregory. 2012. Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 19: 975–991. CrossRef
George, Stephen L. 2016. Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors. International Journal of Clinical Oncology 21: 15–21. CrossRef
Hansson, Sven Ove. 2011. Do we need a special ethics for research? Science and Engineering Ethics 17: 21–29. CrossRef
Helgesson, Gert. 2015. Plagiarism. In Encyclopedia of global bioethics, ed. Henk Ten Have. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_340-1
Helgesson, Gert, and Stefan Eriksson. 2015. Plagiarism in research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18: 91–101. CrossRef
Husak, Douglas. 2008. Overcriminalization: the limits of the criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Husak, Douglas. 2009. The costs to criminal theory of supposing that intentions are irrelevant to permissibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 3: 51–70. CrossRef
Mill, John Stuart. 1977. The collected works of John Stuart Mill, volume XVIII—essays on politics and society part I. ed. John M. Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Moore, Michael S. 2009. A tale of two theories. Criminal Justice Ethics 28: 27–48. CrossRef
Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349: aac4716. CrossRef
Pickett, Justin T., and Sean Patrick Roche. 2018. Questionable, objectionable or criminal? Public opinion on data fraud and selective reporting in science. Science and Engineering Ethics 24: 151–171. CrossRef
Redman, Barbara K., and Arthur L. Caplan. 2005. Off with their heads: the need to criminalize some forms of scientific misconduct. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33: 345–346. CrossRef
Redman, Barbara K., and Arthur L. Caplan. 2015. No one likes a snitch. Science and Engineering Ethics 21: 813–819. CrossRef
Resnik, David. 2014. Data fabrication and falsification and empiricist philosophy of science. Science and Engineering Ethics 20: 423–431. CrossRef
Resnik, David B., Lisa M. Rasmussen, and Grace E. Kissling. 2015a. An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research 22: 249–266. CrossRef
Resnik, David B., Talicia Neal, Austin Raymond, and Grace E. Kissling. 2015b. Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research 22: 14–21. CrossRef
Schmidt, Stefan. 2009. Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology 13: 90–100. CrossRef
Segev, Re’em. 2017. Should law track morality? Criminal Justice Ethics 36: 205–223. CrossRef
Shamoo, Adil E., and David Resnik. 2009. Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Sovacool, Benjamin K. 2005. Using criminalization and cue process to reduce scientific misconduct. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: W1–W7. CrossRef
Steneck, Nicholas H. 2006. Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics 12: 53–74. CrossRef
Walen, Alec. 2016. Retributive justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/justice-retributive/.
Wringe, Bill. 2016. An expressive theory of punishment. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRef
Zigmond, Michael J., and Beth A. Fischer. 2002. Beyond fabrication and plagiarism: The little murders of everyday science. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 229–234. CrossRef
- Criminalization of scientific misconduct
- Springer Netherlands
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
A European Journal
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8633
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
e.Med Kampagnen-Visual, Mail Icon II