References

1 Hart DM. Forged consensus: science, technology, and economic policy in the United States, 1921-1953. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.

2 Kleinman DL. Politics on the endless frontier: postwar research policy in the United States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995.

3 Smith BLR. American science policy since World War II. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1990.

4 Bush V. Science - The endless frontier, a report to the president on a program for postwar scientific research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1945, 10.

5 Frankel MS. Scientific societies as sentinels of responsible research conduct. Proc Soc Exp Biol 2000;224:216, 218.

6 Braxton JM, Bayer AE. Personal experience of research misconduct and the response of individual academic scientists. Science Technol Human Values 1996;21:200, 206.

7 LaFollette MC. Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and other misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992.

8 Weiner JS. The Piltdown forgery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955.

9 Rieth A. Archaeological fakes. Translated by D Imber. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970.

10 Broad WJ, Wade N. Betrayers of the truth: fraud and deceit in the halls of science. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.

11 Kohn A. False prophets: fraud and error in science and medicine. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

12 Spencer F. Piltdown: a scientific forgery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

13 Hixson J. The patchwork mouse. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1976.

14 Relman AS. Lessons from the Darsee affair. N Engl J Med 1983;308:1415-17.

15 Stewart WW, Feder N.The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature 1987;325:207-14.

16 LaFollette MC. A foundation of trust: scientific misconduct: congressional oversight, and the regulatory response. In: Braxton JM, ed. Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1999, pp.11-41.

17 Smith BLR. The accountability of science. Minerva 1996;34:47-8, 54.

18 US Congress. House. The regulatory environment for science, science policy study background. Report no. 10 to the Committee on Science and Technology. 99th Congress, 2nd session. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1986.

19 US Congress. House. Fraud in biomedical research, hearings before the Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. 97th Congress, 1st session. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1981.

20 Griffith ES. Congress: its contemporary role, 3rd edn. New York: New York University Press, 1961.

21 Aberbach JD. Keeping a watchful eye: the politics of congressional oversight. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1990, p. 22.

22 Savage JD. Funding science in America: Congress, universities, and the politics of the academic pork barrel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

23 US Congress. House. Scientific fraud and misconduct and the federal response. Hearing of the Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on human resources and intergovernmental relations. 100th Congress, 1st session, 11 April 1988. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1988.

24 US Congress. House. Scientific fraud and misconduct in the National Institutes of Health Biomedical Grant Programs. Hearing of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 100th Congress, 1st session, 12 April 1988. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1988.

25 Sarasohn J. Science on trial: the whistle blower, the accused, and the Nobel laureate. New York: St Martin's Press, 1993.

26 Kevles DJ. The Baltimore case: a trial of politics, science, and character. New York: WW Norton, 1998.

27 Greenberg DS. Fraud inquiry: NIH on the capitol griddle (continued). Science and Government Report 1988;18(1 May):3-6.

28 Valentine PW. Drug therapy researcher is indicted. The Washington Post 16 April 1988;111:A1,A14.

29 Wheeler DL. Researcher is indicted for falsifying data and impeding investigation of his work. Chronicle of Higher Education 27 April 1988;34:A4, A12.

30 Zurer PS. Researcher criminally charged with fraud. Chem Engineering News 25 April 1988;66:5.

31 Garfield E. The impact of scientific fraud. In: Guarding the guardians: research on peer review. Proceedings of the 1st Internat Congr Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Chicago, Illinois, 10-12 May 1989, p. 53.

32 Angell M, Relman AS. A time for congressional restraint. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1462-3.

33 US Congress. House. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Maintaining the integrity of scientific research. 101st Congress, 2nd session. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1990, pp. 3-4.

34 Johnson D. From denial to action: academic and scientific societies grapple with misconduct. In: Braxton JM, ed. Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1999, pp. 42-74.

35 Steneck NH. Research universities and scientific misconduct: history, policies, and the future. In: Braxton JM, ed. Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1999, pp. 75-98.

36 Engler RL, Covell JW, Friedman PJ, Kitcher PS, Peters RM. Misrepresentation and responsibility in medical research. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1383-9.

37 Friedman PJ. Research ethics, due process, and common sense. JAMA 1988;260:1937-8.

38 Dalton R. Journals slow to retract Slutsky research errors. The Scientist 1988; 2(7 March):1,4.

39 Hostetler AJ. Fear of suits blocks retractions. The Scientist 1987;1(19 October):1-2.

40 US Congress. House. Scientific fraud and misconduct: The institutional response. Hearing of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 101st Congress, 1st session, 9 May 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1989.

41 US Congress. House. Scientific fraud. Hearing of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 101st Congress, 2nd session, 14 May 1990.Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1990.

42 Greenberg DS. Fraud inquiry: harsh treatment for NIH on Capitol Hill. Science and Government Report 1988;18(15 April):1.

43 Schachman HK.What is misconduct in science? Science 1993;261:148-9, 183.

44 Buzzelli DE. The definition of misconduct in science: a view from NSF. Science 1993;259:584-5, 647-8.

45 Kuznik F. Fraud busters. The Washington Post Magazine 1991;(14 April):22-6, 31-3.

46 Zurer PS. Whistleblower rejects apology by Baltimore. Chem Engineering News 1991; 69 (13 May):7.

47 Hilts PJ. Hero in exposing science hoax paid dearly. New York Times 1991; (22 March): A1, B6.

48 Culliton BJ. Baltimore cleared of all fraud charges. Science 1989;243:727.

49 Culliton bJ. Whose notes are they? Science 1989;244:765.

50 Zurer PS. Scientific whistleblower vindicated. Chem Engineering News 1991;69(8 April): 35-6,40.

51 Anonymous. David Baltimore's mea culpa. Science 1991;252:769-70.

52 Price AR. Anonymity and pseudonymity in whistleblowing to the US Office of Research Integrity. Acad Med 1998;73(May):467-72.

53 Anonymous. ORI finds misconduct against Dr Imanishi-Kari. ORI Newsletter 1994;3(1) (December):1.

54 Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, US Department of Health and Human Services. Statement of organization, functions, and delegations of authority. Federal Register 2000;65(93)(12 May):30600-1.

55 LaFollette MC. Avoiding plagiarism: some thoughts on use, attribution, and acknowledgment. J Inform Ethics 1994;3(2):25-35.

56 Office of Inspector General. Semiannual report to the Congress Number 4 (1 October 199031 March 1991). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1991.

57 Office of Research Integrity. 1999 Annual Report.Washington, DC: 2000.

58 McDonald KA. Too many co-authors? Chronicle of Higher Education 1995;41(28 April):A35-6.

59 Kennedy D. Reflections on a retraction. Science 2000;289:1137.

60 Anderson MS. Uncovering the covert: research on academic misconduct. In: Braxton JM, ed. Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1999, pp. 283-314.

61 Hackett EJ. A social control perspective on scientific misconduct. In: Braxton JM, ed. Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1999, pp. 101-2.

62 Hebborn E. Drawn to trouble: confessions of a master forger. New York: Random House, 1993, p. 218.

63 Price DK. The scientific estate. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1965, p. 1.

64 Kassirer JP. The frustrations of scientific misconduct. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1634.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment