288
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

      Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journalsFurthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

      scite_
       
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      SCIENTIFIC FRAUD AND THE POWER STRUCTURE OF SCIENCE

      Published
      research-article
      Prometheus
      Pluto Journals
      Scientific fraud, bias, misrepresentation
      Bookmark

            Abstract

            In the routine practice of scientific research, there are many types of misrepresentation and bias which could be considered dubious. However, only a few narrowly defined behaviours are singled out and castigated as scientific fraud. A narrow definition of scientific fraud is convenient to the groups in society – scientific elites, and powerful government and corporate interests – that have the dominant influence on priorities in science. Several prominent Australian cases illustrate how the denunciation of fraud helps to paint the rest of scientific behaviour as blameless.

            Content

            Author and article information

            Journal
            cpro20
            CPRO
            Prometheus
            Critical Studies in Innovation
            Pluto Journals
            0810-9028
            1470-1030
            June 1992
            : 10
            : 1
            : 83-98
            Affiliations
            Article
            8629515 Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1992: pp. 83–98
            10.1080/08109029208629515
            3b0f71c9-650c-4965-a322-739c7e5aa499
            Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

            History
            Page count
            Figures: 0, Tables: 0, References: 31, Pages: 16
            Categories
            Original Articles

            Computer science,Arts,Social & Behavioral Sciences,Law,History,Economics
            misrepresentation,Scientific fraud,bias

            NOTES AND REFERENCES

            1. Collins H. M.. 1985. . Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice . , London : : Sage. . Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of ScienceLaboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts

            2. Ann Baker C. M. and Clyde Manwell. . 1981. . ‘Honesty in science: a partial test of a sociobiological model of the social structure of science’. . Search . , Vol. 12:: 151––60. . Science under Siege: The Myth of Objectivity in Scientific Research

            3. Robert Pullan. . 1984. . Guilty Secrets: Free Speech in Australia . , Sydney : : Methuen Australia. .

            4. P. B. Medawar, ‘Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought’, Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42–3.

            5. John Schuster A. and Richard Yeo R.. 1986. . The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies . , Dordrecht : : Reidel. .

            6. Erwin Chargaff. . 1976. . ‘Triviality in science: a brief meditation on fashions’. . Perspectives on Biology and Medicine . , Vol. 19:: 324––33. . op. cit.

            7. Michael MacRoberts H. and Barbara MacRoberts R.. 1989. . ‘Problems of citation analysis: a critical review’. . Journal of the American Society for Information Science . , Vol. 40:: 342––9. .

            8. Brian Martin, ‘Academic exploitation’, in Brian Martin, C. M. Ann Baker, Clyde Manwell and Cedric Pugh (eds), Intellectual Suppression: Australian Case Histories, Analysis and Responses, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1986, pp. 59–62.

            9. Richard Simonsen J.. 1990. . ‘Multiple authors: an ethical dilemma’. . Quintessence International . , Vol. 21:: 767 Nature

            10. Stewart and Feder, op. cit.

            11. Anonymous, letter to Clyde Manwell, 2 August 1989.

            12. Alexandre Grothendiek, ‘Crafoord prize turned down’, Science for the People, 20, November-December 1988, pp. 3–4.

            13. William Broad and Nicholas Wade. . 1982. . Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science . , New York : : Simon and Schuster. . False Prophets

            14. Klein J.. 1985. . ‘Hegemony of mediocrity in contemporary sciences, particularly in immunology’. . Lymphology . , Vol. 18:: 122––31. .

            15. Phillip Boffey M.. 1975. . The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science . , New York : : McGraw-Hill. . The Politics of CancerAdvice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena

            16. Myron Peretz Glazer and Penina Migdal Glazer. . 1989. . The Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry . , New York : : Basic Books. . op. cit.;Whistle Blowing: The Report of the Conference on Professional Responsibility

            17. David Dickson. . 1984. . The New Politics of Science . , New York : : Pantheon. .

            18. Brian Martin. . 1981. . ‘The scientific straightjacket’. . The Ecologist . , Vol. 11: January-February;: 33––43. .

            19. Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins and Richard Whitley. . 1982. . Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies . , Dordrecht : : Reidel. . Social Studies of Science

            20. Julius A. Roth, Mistakes at Work, Julius A. Roth, Davis, 1991.

            21. Jane Howard, ‘Dr. Ronald Wild takes college job in far northwest’, Australian, 16 July 1986, p. 13; Anthony MacAdam, ‘The professor is accused of cribbing’, Bulletin, 1 October 1985, pp. 32–3.

            22. Brian Martin. . 1983. . ‘Disruption and due process: the dismissal of Dr. Spautz from the University of Newcastle’. . Vestes . , Vol. 26((1)): 3––9. . Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration

            23. Bill Nicol, McBride: Behind the Myth, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, 1989.

            24. Christopher Dawson, ‘Briggs: unanswered questions’, Australian, 1 April 1987, p. 14; Deborah Smith, ‘Scandal in academe’, National Times, 25-31 October 1985, pp. 3–4, 26-7; Terry Stokes, ‘The Briggs Enquiry’, Search, 20, March-April 1989, pp. 38–40.

            25. Bruce Hollis W.. 1987. . ‘I turned in my mentor’. . The Scientist . , Vol. 1: 14 December;: 11––12. . ibid.;ibid.

            26. Charles W. McCutchen, letter to Brian Martin, 12 December 1989.

            27. ‘Bad manners? The case of Helga Kuhse’, Quadrant, 34, October 1990, pp. 65–9.

            28. Martin, 1984, op. cit.

            29. Randall Collins. . 1982. . “‘The normalcy of crime’. ”. In Sociological Insight: An Introduction to Nonobvious Sociology . , New York : : Oxford University Press. .

            30. Epstein, op. cit.;, Phillip Knightley, Harold Evans, Elaine Potter and Marjorie Wallace, Suffer the Children: The Story of Thalidomide, Andre Deutsch, London, 1979; Savan, op. cit.;, R. Jeffrey Smith, ‘Creative penmanship in animal testing prompts FDA controls’, Science, 198, 1977, pp. 1227–9; Nicholas Wade, ‘Physicians who falsify drug data’, Science, 180, 1973, p. 1038.

            31. Malcolm Atkinson, unpublished paper.

            Comments

            Comment on this article