Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Zoology and wildlife conservation

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Zoology and wildlife conservation

Reflections of a whistle-blower

Article Abstract:

The case of Professor Michael Briggs of Deakin University in Australia demonstrates both the unwillingness of academics to believe that a colleague could be guilty of unethical behavior and the necessity of protecting the public from the consequences of dishonest research. An investigation found that Briggs, who joined Deakin's faculty in 1977 and who died in 1986, had fabricated research concerning the oral contraceptive. The chairman of Deakin's ethics committee who blew the whistle on Briggs believes that the school helped to bring on the scandal by not checking Briggs's credentials.

Author: Rossiter, E.J.R.
Publisher: Macmillan Publishing Ltd.
Publication Name: Nature
Subject: Zoology and wildlife conservation
ISSN: 0028-0836
Year: 1992
Research, Personal narratives, Column, College teachers, College faculty, Whistle blowing, Whistleblowing, Oral contraceptives

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Honorary authorship

Article Abstract:

The practice of experienced scientists taking authorship credit for the work of less well-known colleagues in exchange for the scientists' authority has been called into question concerning responsibility for scientific fraud. Malcolm Pearce is accused of scientific fraud by the British Medical Council and Geoffrey Chamberlain, the head of Pearce's laboratory, has lost credibility because he did not check the research before agreeing to be a co-author. There is some question of residuary responsibility that may discourage the practice of honorary authorship in the future.

Publisher: Macmillan Publishing Ltd.
Publication Name: Nature
Subject: Zoology and wildlife conservation
ISSN: 0028-0836
Year: 1995
Authorship

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Fraud and hoaxes in science

Article Abstract:

Error is a common occurrence in scientific endeavors and cannot be totally eradicated. The negligence of the fact that scientific claims need validation, and the antipathy of the scientists towards finding a solution, aggravates the issue. Scientific frauds are encouraged by the need of quick money for research, lucrative funds from drug companies, and the need to renew research tenure. The creation of unwanted furor over such frauds causes more harm than the fraud itself.

Author: James, William H.
Publisher: Macmillan Publishing Ltd.
Publication Name: Nature
Subject: Zoology and wildlife conservation
ISSN: 0028-0836
Year: 1995
Analysis

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Ethical aspects, Fraud in science, Science fraud, Scientists
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Reflections on Wallace. Linnaeus and taxonomy in Japan. Reflections on ionic liquids
  • Abstracts: Distribution of caribou and wolves in relation to linear corridors. Antler loss and udder distention in relation to parturition in caribou
  • Abstracts: Potential accumulation of a CFC-replacement degradation product in seasonal wetlands. Interactive effects of ambient ozone and climate measured on growth of mature forests trees
  • Abstracts: The energetic cost of begging behaviour in nestling house wrens
  • Abstracts: Mate guarding constrains foraging activity of male baboons. Social anxiety, relationships and self-directed behaviour among wild female olive baboons
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.