By Stephen Lock, Frank Wells
The definitive and in basic terms e-book on the earth which bargains solely with medical study misconduct, recognising that - even though it isn't really rife - its occurance in any respect calls for reputation and motion.
Read Online or Download Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research PDF
Best medical ethics books
Lately, advantage theories have loved a renaissance of curiosity between basic and clinical ethicists. This e-book bargains a virtue-based ethic for drugs, the overall healthiness professions, and well-being care. starting with a ancient account of the concept that of advantage, the authors build a conception of where of the virtues in clinical perform.
How medical professionals imagine defines the character and significance of medical judgment. even though physicians utilize technological know-how, this booklet argues that medication isn't really itself a technological know-how yet fairly an interpretive perform that is dependent upon medical reasoning. a doctor seems on the patient's historical past in addition to the proposing actual signs and juxtaposes those with scientific adventure and empirical stories to build a tentative account of the ailment.
There's a range of ‘ethical practices’ inside of drugs as an institutionalised occupation in addition to a necessity for moral experts either in perform in addition to in institutionalised roles. This short bargains a social point of view on clinical ethics schooling. It discusses more than a few options proper to academic idea and therefore presents a simple illumination of the topic.
Controlling Our Destinies provides the reflections of a global crew of students from numerous humanistic disciplines at the historic origins, the philosophical content material, the moral concerns, and the science-religion questions raised by way of the HGP. participants comprise John Beatty, Robert Bud, Arthur Caplan, Alice Domurat Dreger, Kevin Fitzgerald, Jean-Paul Gaudillière, Jean Gayon, Marguerite Hays, Lily Kay, Evelyn Fox Keller, Philip Kitcher, Timothy Lenoir, Richard McCormick, Ernan McMullin, Edward Manier, Timothy Murphy, John Opitz, Diane Paul, Arthur Peacocke, Martin Pernick, Hans Jörg Rheinberger, Kenneth Schaffner, Phillip R.
- Truly Human Enhancement: A Philosophical Defense of Limits
- Making Sense of Advance Directives (Clinical Medical Ethics)
- Health Issues
- Persons and Their Bodies: Rights, Responsibilities, Relationships (Philosophy and Medicine)
- Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics
- Life and Death in Healthcare Ethics: A Short Introduction
Additional resources for Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research
Smith R. Making progress with competing interests. BMJ 2002; 325: 1375–6. 20. Haivas I, Schroter S, Waechter F, Smith R. Editors’ declaration of their own conflicts of interest. CMAJ 2004; 171: 475–6. 21. Smith R. Peer review – a flawed process at the heart of science. J R Soc Med 2006; 99: 178–82. 22. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2784–6. 23. Smith R. Opening up peer review. BMJ 1999; 318: 4–5. 24. Shapiro DW, Wenger WS, Shapiro MF.
Relating to the mass media It used to be that journals would refuse to publish research that had been trailed in the mass media. Two editors of the New England Journal of Medicine – Franz Ingelfinger and Bud Relman – followed this policy very strongly, arguing that it was irresponsible to publicize research that had not been fully peer-reviewed. The policy was criticized by journalists on the grounds that the journals – which often took a year to publish studies – were holding back information that could be important for the health of the public.
NSF never instituted such a policy, and continued to examine cases where students or co-workers alleged that their contributions had been appropriated by another without cause or attribution. No system in which some could have their complaints examined while others could not would succeed for long. Science is a risky enterprise, often requiring much trial and error. No one could possibly undertake scientific experiments if error was construed as misconduct. As Mishkin22 has pointed out, ‘misconduct’ in legal parlance means a wilful transgression of some definite rule.