Scientific Communication and Ethics

From eebedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
Lectures, discussions and analysis and presentation of case studies in the areas of scientific ethics and communication with the media. Topics in scientific ethics include misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, authorship, intellectual property rights, and academic codes of ethics.   
 
Lectures, discussions and analysis and presentation of case studies in the areas of scientific ethics and communication with the media. Topics in scientific ethics include misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, authorship, intellectual property rights, and academic codes of ethics.   
  
Meetings from 5:00 to 6:30 PM on 20-22 & 27-29 October 2008, in BSP 131.
+
'''Meetings 5:30 to 7:00 pm in TLS 301 on 29, 30 September, 1, 6, 7, and 8 October'''
  
 
Discussions led by [http://www.ecostudies.org/people_sci_likens.html Dr. Gene E. Likens], Distinguished Research Professor
 
Discussions led by [http://www.ecostudies.org/people_sci_likens.html Dr. Gene E. Likens], Distinguished Research Professor
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
==Course Outline==
 
==Course Outline==
===20 October 2008:  Introduction and Organization to Scientific Ethics ― Conduct in Science===
+
===29 September 2009:  Introduction and Organization to Scientific Ethics ― Conduct in Science===
Misconduct and fraud  
+
Introduction
Falsification of evidence; deletion of “outliers”
+
    - Responsible Conduct in Science
Plagiarism  
+
===30 September 2009:    Scientific Ethics ― Conduct in Science===
Failures of Quality Assurance/Quality Control and methods of validation
+
Misconduct and fraud  
Choosing inappropriate methods through ignorance or financial pressure  
+
Falsification of evidence; deletion of “outliers”
===21 October 2008:    Scientific Ethics ― Conduct in Science===
+
Plagiarism  
Peer review; challenges for referees  
+
Failures of Quality Assurance/Quality Control and methods of validation
Power and personal relationships  
+
Choosing inappropriate methods through ignorance or financial pressure  
Authorship and credit: assigning and responsibility at the beginning  
+
===1 October 2009:    Scientific Ethics ― Conduct in Science===
Accountability
+
Peer review; challenges for referees  
===22 October 2008:    Scientific Ethics ― Conduct in Science===
+
Power and personal relationships  
Pressure from funders to provide particular answers
+
Authorship and credit: assigning and responsibility at the beginning  
Censorship, a growing problem?
+
Accountability
Challenges of “advocacy science” – how to  respond?
+
Codes of Ethics at universities and professional societies
Resisting pressures and still be successful
+
===6 October 2009:    What is Scientific Ethical Behavior?===
Conflict of interest / Codes of Ethics at universities and professional societies
+
Pressure from funders to provide particular answers
===27 October 2008:    What is Scientific Ethical Behavior?===
+
Censorship, a growing problem?
Intellectual Property Rights?  
+
Challenges of “advocacy science” – how to  respond?
    Federal Policies  
+
Resisting pressures and still be successful
    Respect for ideas in collaborative research  
+
===7 October 2009:    Communication of Scientific Information===
    Attribution of ideas  
+
Intellectual Property Rights?  
    “Copycat” research proposals  
+
Federal Policies  
    Relationship between a graduate student and a faculty advisor
+
Respect for ideas in collaborative research  
    Access to data  
+
Attribution of ideas  
===28 October 2008:    Communication of Scientific Information===
+
“Copycat” research proposals  
Communicating with the public  
+
Relationship between a graduate student and a faculty advisor
Dealing with the media  
+
Access to data  
  Responsibilities to science and to the environment; dealing with conflicts
+
===8 October 2009:    Ethics and Communication of Scientific Information===
  “Least publishable unit”   
+
Communicating with the public  
===29 October 2008:     Ethics and Communication of Scientific Information===
+
Dealing with the media  
“Covering the Environment”  
+
Responsibilities to science and to the environment; dealing with conflicts
Aldo Leopold – A Land Ethic  
+
“Least publishable unit”   
 +
Resources:  
 +
  http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062
 +
  http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195135156
 +
  http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12376658
 +
“Covering the Environment”  
 +
Aldo Leopold – A Land Ethic  
 
== See last year's outline [http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/eebedia/index.php/Scientific_Communication_and_Ethics_2007 here]==
 
== See last year's outline [http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/eebedia/index.php/Scientific_Communication_and_Ethics_2007 here]==
 
==Reading list==
 
==Reading list==
 
Alberts, B. and K. Shine.  1994.  Scientists and the integrity of research.  Science 266:1660-1661. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=B&aulast=Alberts&atitle=Scientists+and+the+integrity+of+research.&id=pmid:7992048 link]
 
Alberts, B. and K. Shine.  1994.  Scientists and the integrity of research.  Science 266:1660-1661. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=B&aulast=Alberts&atitle=Scientists+and+the+integrity+of+research.&id=pmid:7992048 link]
 +
 +
Butler, D. 2008.  Iranian paper sparks sense of deja vu. Nature  455, 1019 (2008) [http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081022/full/4551019a.html link]
 +
 +
Butler, D. 2008. Entire-paper plagiarism caught by software.  Nature  455, 715 (2008) [http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081008/full/455715a.html link]
 +
 +
Carraway, L. N.  2009.  Ethics for and responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors in science.  Am. Midl. Nat. 161:146-164.
  
 
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy.  1995.  On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research.  National Academy Press, Washington, DC.  Second Edition.  www.nap.edu  
 
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy.  1995.  On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research.  National Academy Press, Washington, DC.  Second Edition.  www.nap.edu  
Line 51: Line 63:
 
Couzin, J. Truth and Consequences. 2006. Science 313: 1222-1226.
 
Couzin, J. Truth and Consequences. 2006. Science 313: 1222-1226.
  
 +
Couzin,-Frankel, J. and J. Grom.  2009.  Plagiarism sleuths.  Science 324:1004-1007.
 +
 
Davis, G.  2005.  Doctors without orders.  [Highlights of the Sigma Xi Postdoc Survey].  Special Supplement to American Scientist (May-June), pp. 1-13.  http://postdoc.sigmaxi.org  
 
Davis, G.  2005.  Doctors without orders.  [Highlights of the Sigma Xi Postdoc Survey].  Special Supplement to American Scientist (May-June), pp. 1-13.  http://postdoc.sigmaxi.org  
  
 
Eco-Ethics International Union.  http://www.int-res.com [EEIU]  
 
Eco-Ethics International Union.  http://www.int-res.com [EEIU]  
 +
 +
Economist Magazine 2008. Publish and be wrong. October 9, 2008. [http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12376658 link]
  
 
Elliott, Deni and Judy E. Stern (editors).  1997.  Research Ethics:  A Reader.  University Press of New England.   
 
Elliott, Deni and Judy E. Stern (editors).  1997.  Research Ethics:  A Reader.  University Press of New England.   
Line 62: Line 78:
  
 
Galindo-Leal, C.  1996.  Explicit authorship.  Bull. Ecol. Amer., October, pp. 219-220.  
 
Galindo-Leal, C.  1996.  Explicit authorship.  Bull. Ecol. Amer., October, pp. 219-220.  
 +
 +
Gilovich, T. 1991. How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. Free Press. New York. 224p [http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062 link]
  
 
Gladwell, M.  2004.  Something borrowed.  (Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?)  The New Yorker, November 22, 2004, pp. 40-48.  
 
Gladwell, M.  2004.  Something borrowed.  (Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?)  The New Yorker, November 22, 2004, pp. 40-48.  
 +
 +
Hayes, R. and D. Grossman.  2006.  A Scientist’s Guide to Talking with the Media.  Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
  
 
Horn, K.  2001.  The consequences of citing hedged statements in scientific research articles.  BioScience 51(12):1086-1093. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=K&aulast=Horn&atitle=The+Consequences+of+Citing+Hedged+Statements+in+Scientific+Research+Articles&title=BioScience&volume=51&issue=12&date=2001&spage=1086&issn=0006-3568 link]
 
Horn, K.  2001.  The consequences of citing hedged statements in scientific research articles.  BioScience 51(12):1086-1093. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=K&aulast=Horn&atitle=The+Consequences+of+Citing+Hedged+Statements+in+Scientific+Research+Articles&title=BioScience&volume=51&issue=12&date=2001&spage=1086&issn=0006-3568 link]
Line 84: Line 104:
  
 
Likens, G. E.  1992.  The Ecosystem Approach:  Its Use and Abuse.  Excellence in Ecology,              Vol. 3.  Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany.  167 pp.  
 
Likens, G. E.  1992.  The Ecosystem Approach:  Its Use and Abuse.  Excellence in Ecology,              Vol. 3.  Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany.  167 pp.  
 +
 +
Long, T. C., M. Errami, A. C. George, Zhaohui Sun and H. R. Garner.  2009.  Scientific integrity:  responding to possible plagiarism.  Science 323(5919):1293-1294.
  
 
Macrina, F. L.  2005.  Scientific Integrity.  3rd Edition.  ASM Press, Washington, D.C.  402 pp.  
 
Macrina, F. L.  2005.  Scientific Integrity.  3rd Edition.  ASM Press, Washington, D.C.  402 pp.  
Line 94: Line 116:
  
 
Minteer, B. A. and J. P. Collins.  2005.  Why we need an “ecological ethics.”  Front. Ecol. Environ. 3(6):332-337. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=BA&aulast=Minteer&atitle=Why+we+need+an+%E2%80%9Cecological+ethics%E2%80%9D&title=Frontiers+in+ecology+and+the+environment&volume=3&issue=6&spage=332&issn=1540-9295 link]
 
Minteer, B. A. and J. P. Collins.  2005.  Why we need an “ecological ethics.”  Front. Ecol. Environ. 3(6):332-337. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=BA&aulast=Minteer&atitle=Why+we+need+an+%E2%80%9Cecological+ethics%E2%80%9D&title=Frontiers+in+ecology+and+the+environment&volume=3&issue=6&spage=332&issn=1540-9295 link]
 +
 +
Moller, A. P.  2005.  Improving the processing of scientific misconduct charges:  an eyewitness perspective.  ISBE Newsletter (Supplement to Behavoral Ecology) 17(2):34-35.(See also related articles and emails)
  
 
Mooney, C.  2005.  The Republican War on Science.  Basic Books, Cambridge, MA.  342 pp.  
 
Mooney, C.  2005.  The Republican War on Science.  Basic Books, Cambridge, MA.  342 pp.  
 +
 +
National Academy of Sciences.  National Academy of Engineering.  Institute of Medicine.  1992.  Responsible Science.  Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process.  Vol. 1.  National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  
 
National Academy of Sciences.  1997.  Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend.  [On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering].  National Academy Press.  
 
National Academy of Sciences.  1997.  Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend.  [On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering].  National Academy Press.  
  
 
National Science and Technology Council. 2000.  Federal Policy on Research Misconduct.  [http://www.ostp.gov/cs/federal_policy_on_research_misconduct]
 
National Science and Technology Council. 2000.  Federal Policy on Research Misconduct.  [http://www.ostp.gov/cs/federal_policy_on_research_misconduct]
 +
 +
Nelson, M. and J. Vucetich.  2009.  Abandon Hope.  The Ecologist (March 2009), pp. 32-35.
 +
 +
Park, R. 2000. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, New York. 230p. [http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195135156 link]
 +
 +
Primack, R. B.  2009.  Why did we reject your paper? (Editorial) Biological Conservation 142:1559.
  
 
Resnik, D. B.  1998.  The Ethics of Science.  An Introduction.  Routledge, London.  221 pp.  
 
Resnik, D. B.  1998.  The Ethics of Science.  An Introduction.  Routledge, London.  221 pp.  
Line 106: Line 138:
  
 
Shatz, D.  2004.  Peer Review. A critical inquiry.  Rowman and Littlefield Publ. Inc. NY. 247 pp.  
 
Shatz, D.  2004.  Peer Review. A critical inquiry.  Rowman and Littlefield Publ. Inc. NY. 247 pp.  
 +
 +
Seglen, P. O.  1997.  Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research.  British Medical Journal 314:498-502.
  
 
Shea, W. R. and B. Sitter (eds.).  1989.  Scientists and Their Responsibility.  Watson Publishing International.  Canton, MA.  
 
Shea, W. R. and B. Sitter (eds.).  1989.  Scientists and Their Responsibility.  Watson Publishing International.  Canton, MA.  
 +
 +
Silver, S.  2006.  Gaming the impact factor.  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(6):283.
  
 
Smith, M. F., V. T. Eviner, K. C. Weathers, M. Uriarte, H. A. Ewing, J. M. Jeschke, P. Groffman and C. G. Jones.  2005.  Creating individual awareness about responsible conduct in research:  A case study of one institution’s approach for researchers and administrators.  J. Res. Admin. 36(1):21-25. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=MF&aulast=Smith&atitle=Creating+Individual+Awareness+about+Responsible+Conduct+in+Research:+A+Case+Study+of+One+Institution%E2%80%99s+Approach+for+Researchers+and+Administrators&title=The+journal+of+research+administration&volume=36&issue=1/2&date=2005&spage=21&issn=1539-1590 link]
 
Smith, M. F., V. T. Eviner, K. C. Weathers, M. Uriarte, H. A. Ewing, J. M. Jeschke, P. Groffman and C. G. Jones.  2005.  Creating individual awareness about responsible conduct in research:  A case study of one institution’s approach for researchers and administrators.  J. Res. Admin. 36(1):21-25. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=MF&aulast=Smith&atitle=Creating+Individual+Awareness+about+Responsible+Conduct+in+Research:+A+Case+Study+of+One+Institution%E2%80%99s+Approach+for+Researchers+and+Administrators&title=The+journal+of+research+administration&volume=36&issue=1/2&date=2005&spage=21&issn=1539-1590 link]
  
 
Steneck, Nicholas H.  2003.  ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research.  (Office of Research Integrity)  
 
Steneck, Nicholas H.  2003.  ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research.  (Office of Research Integrity)  
 +
 +
Stokstad, Erik. 2007. ORNITHOLOGY: Gambling on a Ghost Bird. Science 317:888-892[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;317/5840/888?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Stokstad&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT]
  
 
Trevors, J. T. and M. H. Saier, Jr.  2008.  Corruption and fraud in science.  Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 189:1-3.  
 
Trevors, J. T. and M. H. Saier, Jr.  2008.  Corruption and fraud in science.  Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 189:1-3.  
  
Warner, J. S., G. M. Lovett and J. Cadwallader1991Scientists and journalists:  A primer for scientists who talk to reportersBull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 72(2):116-118.  
+
University of Zurich. 2001Mission statementAuthorised by the Extended Executive Board of the University of Zurich on 16th January 2001(Includes brief statement on ethical responsibility). Accessed 22 October 2008. [http://www.uzh.ch/about/basics/mission_en.html]
  
Young, J. R2001The cat-and-mouse game of plagiarism detectionChronicle of Higher Education, July 6, 2001.  A16. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=JR&aulast=Young&atitle=The+cat-and-mouse+game+of+plagiarism+detection&title=The+chronicle+of+higher+education&volume=47&issue=43&date=2001&spage=6&issn=0009-5982 link]
+
Waltz, E2009BattlefieldNature 461:27-32.
 
+
University of Zurich.  2001.  Mission statement.  Authorised by the Extended Executive Board of the University of Zurich on 16th January 2001.  (Includes brief statement on ethical responsibility). Accessed 22 October 2008. [http://www.uzh.ch/about/basics/mission_en.html]
+
  
 +
Warner, J. S., G. M. Lovett and J. Cadwallader.  1991.  Scientists and journalists:  A primer for scientists who talk to reporters.  Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 72(2):116-118.
  
 +
Weissberger, E.  2008.  The ethics forum:  the ethics of environmental manipulations.  Limnol. Oceanogr. Bulletin 17(4):103-104.
  
 +
Young, J. R.  2001.  The cat-and-mouse game of plagiarism detection.  Chronicle of Higher Education, July 6, 2001.  A16. [http://sfx5.exlibrisgroup.com:3210/uconn?sid=google&auinit=JR&aulast=Young&atitle=The+cat-and-mouse+game+of+plagiarism+detection&title=The+chronicle+of+higher+education&volume=47&issue=43&date=2001&spage=6&issn=0009-5982 link]
  
 +
Ziman, J.  2000.  Are debatable scientific questions debatable?  Social Epistemology 14(2-3):187-199.
  
  
 
[[Category:EEB Seminars]]
 
[[Category:EEB Seminars]]

Latest revision as of 14:50, 3 October 2009

Justice.jpg

Contents

Course Description

Lectures, discussions and analysis and presentation of case studies in the areas of scientific ethics and communication with the media. Topics in scientific ethics include misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, authorship, intellectual property rights, and academic codes of ethics.

Meetings 5:30 to 7:00 pm in TLS 301 on 29, 30 September, 1, 6, 7, and 8 October

Discussions led by Dr. Gene E. Likens, Distinguished Research Professor


Course Outline

29 September 2009: Introduction and Organization to Scientific Ethics ― Conduct in Science

Introduction

    - Responsible Conduct in Science 

30 September 2009: Scientific Ethics ― Conduct in Science

Misconduct and fraud Falsification of evidence; deletion of “outliers” Plagiarism Failures of Quality Assurance/Quality Control and methods of validation Choosing inappropriate methods through ignorance or financial pressure

1 October 2009: Scientific Ethics ― Conduct in Science

Peer review; challenges for referees Power and personal relationships Authorship and credit: assigning and responsibility at the beginning Accountability Codes of Ethics at universities and professional societies

6 October 2009: What is Scientific Ethical Behavior?

Pressure from funders to provide particular answers Censorship, a growing problem? Challenges of “advocacy science” – how to respond? Resisting pressures and still be successful

7 October 2009: Communication of Scientific Information

Intellectual Property Rights? Federal Policies Respect for ideas in collaborative research Attribution of ideas “Copycat” research proposals Relationship between a graduate student and a faculty advisor Access to data

8 October 2009: Ethics and Communication of Scientific Information

Communicating with the public Dealing with the media Responsibilities to science and to the environment; dealing with conflicts “Least publishable unit” Resources:

 http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062
 http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195135156
 http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12376658

“Covering the Environment” Aldo Leopold – A Land Ethic

See last year's outline here

Reading list

Alberts, B. and K. Shine. 1994. Scientists and the integrity of research. Science 266:1660-1661. link

Butler, D. 2008. Iranian paper sparks sense of deja vu. Nature 455, 1019 (2008) link

Butler, D. 2008. Entire-paper plagiarism caught by software. Nature 455, 715 (2008) link

Carraway, L. N. 2009. Ethics for and responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors in science. Am. Midl. Nat. 161:146-164.

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 1995. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Second Edition. www.nap.edu

Couzin, J. Truth and Consequences. 2006. Science 313: 1222-1226.

Couzin,-Frankel, J. and J. Grom. 2009. Plagiarism sleuths. Science 324:1004-1007.

Davis, G. 2005. Doctors without orders. [Highlights of the Sigma Xi Postdoc Survey]. Special Supplement to American Scientist (May-June), pp. 1-13. http://postdoc.sigmaxi.org

Eco-Ethics International Union. http://www.int-res.com [EEIU]

Economist Magazine 2008. Publish and be wrong. October 9, 2008. link

Elliott, Deni and Judy E. Stern (editors). 1997. Research Ethics: A Reader. University Press of New England.

Environment Institute of Australia. 1998. The Ethics of Environmental Research. Proceedings of 1997 Fenner Conference on Environmental Research Ethics. Australian Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 5, 84 pp.

Fairchild, A. and R. Bayer. 2004. Ethics and the Conduct of Public Health Surveillance. Science 303:631-632. link

Galindo-Leal, C. 1996. Explicit authorship. Bull. Ecol. Amer., October, pp. 219-220.

Gilovich, T. 1991. How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. Free Press. New York. 224p link

Gladwell, M. 2004. Something borrowed. (Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?) The New Yorker, November 22, 2004, pp. 40-48.

Hayes, R. and D. Grossman. 2006. A Scientist’s Guide to Talking with the Media. Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

Horn, K. 2001. The consequences of citing hedged statements in scientific research articles. BioScience 51(12):1086-1093. link

Institute of Medicine, National Research Council of the National Academies. 2002. Integrity in Scientific Research. Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct.

Interlandi, J. 2006. An Unwelcome Discovery. The New York Times 10/25/2006 link

Kaiser, J. 2000. Ecologists on a mission to save the world. Science 287:1188-1192. link

Kempner, J., C. S. Perlis and J. F. Merz. 2005. Forbidden knowledge. Science 307:854. link

Kitcher, P. 2004. Responsible biology. BioScience 54(4):331-336. link

Lawrence, P. A. 2003. The politics of publication. Nature 422:259-261.

Lawrence, P. (2007) The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology, Volume 17, Issue 15, Pages R583-R585 link

Leopold, Aldo. 1966. pp. 237-264. The Land Ethic, In: A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.

Likens, G. E. 1992. The Ecosystem Approach: Its Use and Abuse. Excellence in Ecology, Vol. 3. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany. 167 pp.

Long, T. C., M. Errami, A. C. George, Zhaohui Sun and H. R. Garner. 2009. Scientific integrity: responding to possible plagiarism. Science 323(5919):1293-1294.

Macrina, F. L. 2005. Scientific Integrity. 3rd Edition. ASM Press, Washington, D.C. 402 pp.

Martinson, B. C., M. S. Anderson and R. de Vries. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737-738. link

Matisoff, G. 2001. Is it publishable? J. Great Lakes Res. 27(1):1-2.

Medawar, P. B. 1979. Advice to a Young Scientist. Basic Books, A Division of Harpur Collins Publisher.

Minteer, B. A. and J. P. Collins. 2005. Why we need an “ecological ethics.” Front. Ecol. Environ. 3(6):332-337. link

Moller, A. P. 2005. Improving the processing of scientific misconduct charges: an eyewitness perspective. ISBE Newsletter (Supplement to Behavoral Ecology) 17(2):34-35.(See also related articles and emails)

Mooney, C. 2005. The Republican War on Science. Basic Books, Cambridge, MA. 342 pp.

National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Engineering. Institute of Medicine. 1992. Responsible Science. Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Academy of Sciences. 1997. Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend. [On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering]. National Academy Press.

National Science and Technology Council. 2000. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. [1]

Nelson, M. and J. Vucetich. 2009. Abandon Hope. The Ecologist (March 2009), pp. 32-35.

Park, R. 2000. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press, New York. 230p. link

Primack, R. B. 2009. Why did we reject your paper? (Editorial) Biological Conservation 142:1559.

Resnik, D. B. 1998. The Ethics of Science. An Introduction. Routledge, London. 221 pp.

Schatz, G. 2006. Jeff’s View on Science and Scientists. Elsevier, London. 192 pp.

Shatz, D. 2004. Peer Review. A critical inquiry. Rowman and Littlefield Publ. Inc. NY. 247 pp.

Seglen, P. O. 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314:498-502.

Shea, W. R. and B. Sitter (eds.). 1989. Scientists and Their Responsibility. Watson Publishing International. Canton, MA.

Silver, S. 2006. Gaming the impact factor. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(6):283.

Smith, M. F., V. T. Eviner, K. C. Weathers, M. Uriarte, H. A. Ewing, J. M. Jeschke, P. Groffman and C. G. Jones. 2005. Creating individual awareness about responsible conduct in research: A case study of one institution’s approach for researchers and administrators. J. Res. Admin. 36(1):21-25. link

Steneck, Nicholas H. 2003. ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. (Office of Research Integrity)

Stokstad, Erik. 2007. ORNITHOLOGY: Gambling on a Ghost Bird. Science 317:888-892[2]

Trevors, J. T. and M. H. Saier, Jr. 2008. Corruption and fraud in science. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 189:1-3.

University of Zurich. 2001. Mission statement. Authorised by the Extended Executive Board of the University of Zurich on 16th January 2001. (Includes brief statement on ethical responsibility). Accessed 22 October 2008. [3]

Waltz, E. 2009. Battlefield. Nature 461:27-32.

Warner, J. S., G. M. Lovett and J. Cadwallader. 1991. Scientists and journalists: A primer for scientists who talk to reporters. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 72(2):116-118.

Weissberger, E. 2008. The ethics forum: the ethics of environmental manipulations. Limnol. Oceanogr. Bulletin 17(4):103-104.

Young, J. R. 2001. The cat-and-mouse game of plagiarism detection. Chronicle of Higher Education, July 6, 2001. A16. link

Ziman, J. 2000. Are debatable scientific questions debatable? Social Epistemology 14(2-3):187-199.

Personal tools