Shamoo,
A.E. and D. Resnik. Responsible Conduct of Research. (Oxford, 2003).
Bulger,
R.E. et. al. The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences,
2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2002).
Byron,
M. and D.R. Barnbaum. Research Ethics: Text and Readings. (Prentice
Hall, 2001).
Loue,
S. Textbook of Research Ethics: Theory and Practice. (Kluwer Academic,
2000) [R724 .L68 2000]
Macrina,
F.L. Scientific Integrity: An Introductory Text with Cases, 2nd
ed. (ASM Press, 2000).
Davis,
M. Ethics and the University. (Routledge, 1999).
Resnik,
D.B. Ethics in Science: An Introduction. (Routledge, 1998)
Elliott,
D. and J.E. Stern, ed. Research Ethics: A Reader. (University Press of New
England, 1997).
Penslar,
R.L. Research Ethics: Cases and Materials. (Indiana University Press,
1995). [Q180.55.M67 R46 1995]
Bebeau, M. et. al. Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment. (Poynter Center, 1995).
Davis, M. “Do the
Professional Ethics of Chemists and Engineers Differ?,” Hyle 8 (1);
2002: 21-34. (available at www.hyle.org)
Comment: Davis summarizes his view of professions and
comments on the differences between the ethics of chemists and engineers.
Kass,
L.B. “Ethics in Science: Preparing Students for their Career,” Plant Science
47 (2); Summer 2001: 42-48.
Comment: A discussion of the “realities of graduate
school,” a call for ethics in science education, and brief discussions of some
historical examples, including Darwin.
Kovac, J. “Professionalism
and Ethics in Chemistry,” Foundations of Chemistry 00; 1999: 1-13.
Nagy, T.F. Ethics in
Plain English: an Illustrative Casebook for Psychologists. (American
Psychological Association, 2000). [BF76.4 .N34 1999]
Bersoff,
D.N. Ethical Conflicts in Psychology. (American Psychological
Association, 1999). [BF76.4 .E814 1999]
Kennedy,
D. Academic Duty. (Harvard University Press, 1997).
Bird, S.J. “The Role of Professional
Societies: Codes of Conduct and Their Enforcement,” Science and Eng. Ethics 4;
1998: 315-320.
Dyson,
F. “Can Science Be Ethical?” New York Review of Books 44 (6); April 10,
1997: 46-49.
Comment: Dyson’s central point is that only if technological
development is accompanied by ethics can it work to the advantage of all in
society.
Gardner,
W. “The Enforcement of Professional Ethics by Scientific Societies,” Professional
Ethics 5 (1&2); 1996: 125-137.
Coppola,
B.P. and D.H. Smith. “A Case for Ethics,” J. Chem. Ed 73 (1); January,
1996: 33-34.
Comment: A call for formal treatment of ethical
decision-making in science education.
Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in
Research. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995).
Shrader-Frechette, K.S. Ethics
of Scientific Research. (Rowman & Littlefield, 1994). [Q180.55.M67 S48
1994]
Gorlin, R.A. Codes of
Professional Responsibility. (Bureau of National Affairs, 1994). [BJ1725
.C57 1994]
Alberts, B. and K. Shine.
“Scientists and the Integrity of Research,” Science 266; Dec. 9, 1994:
1660-1661. [Q1 S35]
Bulger, R.E., et. al. The
Ethical Dimensions of the Biological Sciences. (Cambridge University Press,
1993).
Grinnell,
F. The Scientific Attitude. (Guilford Press, 1992).
1.
Misconduct
Spotts, Peter N. “Science
Labs, Too, ‘Cooking the Books’,” C. S. Monitor July 19, 2002.
Bauer, H.H. “’Pathological
Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it Pathological),” Hyle
8(1); 2002: 5-20. (available at www.hyle.org)
Comment: Bauer argues provocatively
that the concepts of both pathological science and scientific misconduct are
ill-defined. Interesting discussions of
N-Rays, Polywater, and Cold Fusion, arguing that the methods that led to these
“discoveries” were indistinguishable from the methods of legitimate science.
Dresser, R. “Defining
Research Misconduct: Will We Know It When We See It?,” Hastings Center
Report May-June 2001: 31-32. [R724 .H27b]
Comment: A brief review of
misconduct definitions.
Bird, S.J. and A.K. Dustira.
“New Common Federal Definition of Research Misconduct in the United States,” Science
and Eng. Ethics 6(1); 2000: 123-130.
Pascal,
C.B. “Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity: Federal Definitions and
Approaches,” Professional Ethics, 7(1); 1999: 9-31.
Comment: Written before new Federal policies became
effective, but a good overview of various definitions used by Federal agencies,
including comments on Federal and institutional roles in responding to
misconduct and promoting research integrity.
Bird,
S.J. and A.K. Dustira. “Misconduct in Science: Controversy and Progress,” Science
and Eng. Ethics 5(2); 1999: 131-136.
Ryan,
K.J. “Research Integrity,” Professional Ethics 7(1); 1999: 33-43.
Comment: A discussion of what research integrity is and the
likely causes of the lack of it.
Braxton,
J.M., ed. Perspectives on Scholarly Misconduct in the Sciences. (Ohio
State University Press, 1999).
Altman, E. and P. Hernon,
(eds.) Research Misconduct: Issues, Implications, and Strategies. (Ablex
Publishing, 1997). [Q 180.55 .M67 R49 1997]
Grinnell,
F. “Ambiguity in the Practice of Science,” Science 272; 1996: 333.
[Q1S354]
“Conduct
in Science,” Science 268; June 23, 1995: 1705-1718. [Q1 S35]
Comment: Special multi-authored section discussing some
recent credit disputes (the 1993 Nobel Prize given to Roberts and Sharp, and
Anderson’s credit for early gene therapy trials in 1990), some paragons of
scientific integrity, (Judah Folkman and John Sulston), the Devi authorship
dispute, sharing research materials, and how research ethics is taught at some
leading institutions.
Dresser,
R. “Defining Scientific Misconduct: The Relevance of Mental State,” JAMA 269;
1993: 895-97.
Sanders, J.T. “Honor Among
Thieves: Some Reflections on Professional Codes of Ethics,” Professional
Ethics 2 (3&4); 1993: 83-103.
Bell,
R. Impure Science. (John Wiley & Sons, 1992).
Comment: An extensive treatment of Kalb, NSF’s Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, SSC, SDI, Breuning, Baltimore; often critical of
“big science” and the political processes related to it.
Hamilton,
D.P. “A Shaky Consensus on Misconduct,” Science 256 (5057); May 1, 1992:
604-5. [Q1 S35]
Comment: Discussion of the 1992 NAS study, “Responsible
Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,” explaining some
dissension by the study’s authors.
Kohn,
A. False Prophets. (Basil Blackwell, 1986).
Comment: A fair-minded and interesting summary of many
historical cases of misconduct (several of which Kohn attributes to
self-deception), from Ptolemy and Newton, to Mendel, Polywater, Mitogenetic
Rays, Scotophobin, N-rays, Millikan, Burt, Darsee, Summerlin, etc.In some
cases, Kohn offers alternative explanations for apparent misconduct.
Broad, W.J. and N. Wade. Betrayers
of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. (Simon and
Schuster, 1982). [Q 172.5 .F7 B76 1982]
2. Authorship
Holden,
C. “Few Authors Disclose Conflicts, Survey Finds,” Science 292; May 4,
2001:82.
Robinson,
D.L. et. al. “Dealing with Scientific Disputes Involving Authorship,” Professional
Ethics 7(1); 1999: 45-58.
Comment: A discussion of the experiences of the Center for
Conflict Resolution (within NIH) in dealing with authorship disputes.
Armstrong, J.D. “Peer Review
for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation,” Science
and Eng. Ethics 3; 1997: 63-84.
Comment: Reviews empirical evidence, concluding that peer review
generally improves quality but inhibits publishing innovative findings, and
considers alternatives.
Rennie, D. et. al. “When
Authorship Fails: A Proposal to Make Contributors Accountable,” JAMA 278(7);
August 20, 1997: 579-585. [R15.A48]
Comment: A useful discussion of the problems with the
current system and a proposal to list authors by their specific contributions,
with extensive bibliography.
International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors. “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Biomedical Journals.” JAMA 277; 1997: 927-934. [R15.A48]
McDonald, R. J. “What’s
Wrong with these Publications? Or, Some Pathologies of Scientific Authorship.” Physics
Today 46(8); 1993: 51-52.
Morton,
C.C. “Company, Researchers Battle Over Data Access,”Science 290; Nov.
10,2000: 1063.
Black, N., S. van Rooyen,
et. al. “What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical
Journal?” JAMA 280(3); 1998: 231-33.
Armstrong, J.S. “Peer Review
for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation,” Science
and Eng. Ethics 3(1); 1997: 63-84.
Fliesler,
S. J. “Rethinking Grant Peer Review,” Science 275 (5305); March 7, 1997:
1399. [Q1 S35]
Comment: Proposes federal grant support for Initial Review
Group (IRG) service, in response to the lack of qualified individuals willing
to review NIH grant proposals.
Resnik,
D. B. and A. E. Shamoo, “Conflict of Interest in the University,” Accountability
in Research 9; 2002: 45-64.
Levinsky,
N. G. “Nonfinancial Conflicts of Interest in Research,” NEJM 347(10);
Sep. 5, 2002: 759-761.
Cech, T. R. and J. S.
Leonard. “Conflicts of Interest – Moving Beyond Disclosure,” Science
291(5506); Feb. 9, 2001: 989. [Q1 S35]
Brown, J.R. “Privatizing the
University – The New Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 290; Dec. 1, 2000:
1701-1702. [Q1 S35]
Comment: Brown warns of the dangers that come from an
over-reliance on funding by private industry.
Gunsalus, C.K. and J. Rowan,
“I Know it When I see It: Conflict of Interest in the University Setting,” Research
Management Review, The Journal of the National Council of University Research
Administrators 3: 1–16.
Frankel, M. “Perception,
Reality, and the Political Context of Conflict of Interest in
University-Industry Relationships,” Academic Medicine 71(12); 1996:
1297-1304.
Pritchard,
M.S. “Conflicts of Interest: Conceptual and Normative Issues,” Academic
Medicine 71(12); 1996: 1305-1315.
Etzkowitz, H. “Conflicts of
Interest and Commitment in Academic Science in the United States,” Minerva
34; 1996: 259-77.
Zinberg,
D. S. “A Cautionary Tale,” Science 273 (5274); July 26, 1996: 411. [Q1
S35]
Comment: Summarizes the story of how Boots Pharmaceutical,
after providing money for a basic research project at UCSF, forced researchers
to withdraw a report of their results that would have appeared in JAMA
because these results were bad news for Boots.
Davis,
M. “Conflict of Interest Revisited,” Business & Professional Ethics
Journal 12 (4); 1993: 21-41.
Davis, M. “Codes of Ethics,
Professions, and Conflict of Interest: A Case Study of an Emerging Profession,
Clinical Engineering,” in Professional Ethics 1 (1 & 2); 1992:
179–95.
Comment: Argues for the importance of a code of ethics in
establishing the ethical norms governing a particular profession, and responds
to Ladd’s well-known criticism of ethics codes.
Coppola, B., “The Technology
Transfer Dilemma,” Hyle 7(2); 2002: 155-167. (available at www.hyle.org)
Comment: Coppola discusses the problems and policy
questions that have arisen as a result of the Bayh-Dole Act (1980).
Kovac, J., “Gifts and
Commodities in Chemistry,” Hyle 7(2); 2001: 141-153. (available at www.hyle.org)
Comment: Kovac argues that the widespread use of patents
and the private ownership of information in general by chemists challenges the
traditional professional values of science.
Marshall,
E., “Need a Reagent? Just Sign Here…,” Science 278; Oct. 10, 1997:
212-213. [Q1 S35]
6.
Whistleblowing
Uraneck, K. “When You Must
Report Misconduct,” The Scientist 16(15) July 22, 2002: 41 (available at
http://www.the-scientist.com)
Gunsalus, C. K. “How to Blow
the Whistle and Still Have a Career Afterwards,” Science and Engineering
Ethics 4; 1998: 51-64.
Gadlin, H. “Can You Whistle
While You Work?,” (Commentary on Gunsalus) Science and Engineering Ethics
4; 1998: 65-69.
Boisjoly, R. M.
“Applications to the Industrial Sector,” (Commentary on Gunsalus) Science
and Engineering Ethics 4; 1998: 71-74.
Edsall, J. T. “On the
Hazards of Whistleblowers and on Some Problems of Young Biomedical Scientists
in Our Time,” Science and Engineering Ethics 1; 1995: 329-340.
Krimsky, S. “Commentary on
Edsall,” Science and Engineering Ethics 1; 1995: 341-344.
7.
Human Subjects
O’Neill,
O. “Some Limits of Informed Consent,” J. Med. Ethics 29; 2003: 4-6.
Comment: O’Neill argues that informed consent is important,
not so much because it contributes to personal autonomy (since there are many
competing conceptions of autonomy), but because it provides assurance that
patients and research subjects have not been deceived or coerced.
Huston, P. and Peterson, R.
“Withholding Proven Treatment in Clinical Research,” New Eng. J. Med. 345(12);
Sept. 20, 2001: 912-913. [R11.B7]
Emanuel, E. and Miller, F. “
The Ethics of Placebo-Controlled Trails-A Middle Ground,” New Eng.J. Med.
345(12); Sept. 20, 2001:915-918. [R11.B7]
Mastroianni, A. and Kahn, J.
“Swinging on the Pendulum: Shifting Views of Justice in Human Subjects
Research,” Hastings Center Report May-June 2001: 21-28. [R724 .H27b]
Sales, B. D. and Folkman, S.
(eds.) Ethics in Research with Human Participants. (American
Psychological Association, 2000). [BF76.4 .S35 2000]
Wendler, D. “Informed
Consent, Exploitation and Whether it is Possible to Conduct Human Subjects
Research Without Either One,” Bioethics 14(4); Oct. 2000: 310-339.
[QH332 .B517]
Sugarman, J., et. al. (eds.)
Ethics of Research with Human Subjects: Selected Policies and Resources.
(University Publishing Group, 1998). [R853.H8 E846 1998]
Vanderpool, H. Y. (ed.) The
Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century.
(University Publishing Group, 1996) [R853.H8 E84 1996]
Glantz, L. “Research with
Children,” Amer. J. Law & Medicine 24(2/3); 1998: 231-45.
Engler, R.L. et. al.
“Misrepresentation and Responsibility in Medical Research,” New Eng. J. Med.
317(22); Nov. 26, 1987: 1383-1389. [R11.B7]
Jonas, H. “Philosophical
Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects,” available at http://www.xmission.com/~howardm/IRB/IRB_Forum.html
Comment: An old but still classic article – not that long,
but very slow to download.
Frankel, M. and Siang, S.
“Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research on the Internet,” AAAS
Report, available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.html
Oakes, J. M. “Risks and
Wrongs In Social Science Research: An Evaluator’s Guide to the IRB,” Evaluation
Review (forthcoming).
Lawson, E. “Informational
and Relational Meanings of Deception: Implications for Deception Methods in
Research,” Ethics & Behavior 11(2); 2001: 115-30.
Shea,
C. “Don’t Talk to the Humans,” Lingua Franca 10(6); Sept. 2000.
Ceglowski,
D. “Research as Relationship,” Qualitative Inquiry 6(1); March 2000:
88-104.
Mathuna, D. P. “What to Call
Human Cloning,” EMBO Reports 3(6); 2002: 502-505. (http://embo-reports.oupjournals.org)
Brower, V. “Gene Therapy
Revisited,” EMBO Reports 2(12); 2001: 1064-1065. (http://embo-reports.oupjournals.org)
Meyer, Michael J. and
Nelson, L. J. “Respecting What We Destroy: Reflections on Human Embryo
Research,” Hastings Center Report Jan-Feb 2001: 16-23. [R724 .H27b]
Lee, S. S. et. al. “The
Meanings of ‘Race’ in the New Genomics: Implications for Health Disparities
Research,” Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics 2001: 33-75.
Lanza, R. P., et. al. “The
Ethical Validity of Using Nuclear Transfer in Human Transplantation,” JAMA
284(24); Dec. 27, 2000.
Shapiro, H. T. “Ethical and Policy
Issues of Human Cloning,” Science 277; July 11, 1997: 195-196.
Breithaupt,
H. “Science and War,” EMBO Reports 3(7); 2002. (http://embo-reports.oupjournals.org)
Davis,
M. “Science: After Such Knowledge, What Responsibility?” Professional Ethics,
4 (1); 1995: 49–74.
Comment: Davis argues against the view that scientists have
special responsibilities, e.g. to warn the public about dangers.He rejects
several arguments for the view, and concludes that in order to have such
responsibilities, scientists would have to adopt them in a code of ethics after
organizing themselves as a profession.
Culliton, B. J. “Misconduct
Charges against Gallo Withdrawn after Popovic Decision,” Nature 366
(6452); November 18, 1993: 191. [Q1.N2]
Cohen,
J. “HHS: Gallo Guilty of Misconduct,” Science 259(5092); January 8,
1993: 168-170. [Q1 S35]
Culliton,
B.J. and E. Rubinstein. “Inside the Gallo Probe,” Science 248; June 22,
1990: 1494-1498. [Q1 S35]
Comment: R.C. Gallo is under investigation for allegedly
taking the credit as the person solely responsible for the discovery of the
cause of AIDS. Gallo lays out his story for his peers and the National
Institutes of Health that he is responsible for this discovery.
Popovic, M., Sarngadharan,
M.G., Read, E., and Gallo, R.C., “Detection, Isolation, and Continuous
Production of Cytopaththic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and
Pre-AIDS,” Science 224; May 4, 1984: 497-500. [Q1 S35]
Garfield, E. and A.
Welljams-Dorof. “The Impact of Fraudulent Research on the Scientific
Literature,” JAMA 263 (10); March 9, 1990: 1424-1426. [R15.A48]
Accountability in Research:
Policies and Quality Assurance, 8 (1&2); 2000: 1-188 (special double issue on cold
fusion, ISSN: 0898-9621)
Dagani, R. “Cold Fusion
Takes a Licking, but Keeps on Ticking,” Chem. and Eng. News April 6,
1992: 6.[TP1 .C35]
Bauer, H. “Review of Frank
Close, Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion,” Journal of Scientific
Exploration 5; 1991: 267-270.
Close,
F. Too Hot to Handle. (Princeton University Press, 1991) [QC791.775.C64
C56 1991]
Anderson,
C. “Cold Fusion Tempest at MIT,” Nature 353; September 12, 1991: 98.
[Q1.N2]
Dagani,
R. “Utah Cold Fusion Institute Research Deemed Sound,” Chem. and Eng. News
Dec. 24, 1990: 5.[TP1 .C35]
4.
The Baltimore Affair
Walker,
P.V., “A Dramatic End to a Misconduct Case,” Chron. Higher Ed. 43; July
5, 1996: A22-23. [LB2300 .C5x]
Steele,
F., “Clearing of Researcher in ‘Baltimore Affair’ Boosts Demand for Reforms,” Nature
381; June 27, 1996: 719-20.
Kevles,
D.J., “The Assault on David Baltimore,” New Yorker 72(13); May 27, 1996:
94 (14 p).
Liburdy,
R. P., “Calcium and EMFs: Graphing the Data.” Science 285; July 16,
1999: 337.
Vergano,
D. “EMF Researcher Made Up Data,” Science 285; July 2, 1999: 23-4.
Haworth,
K., “Head of Human Genome Project Retracts Five Journal Articles,” Chron.
Higher Ed. 43; Nov. 8, 1996: A11-12. [LB2300 .C5x]
Comment: Collins retracts five articles after a researcher
he had collaborated with was discovered to have fabricated and misrepresented
data.
7.
Sokal
Sokal, A. The Sokal Hoax:
The Sham that Shook the Academy. ed. Editors of Lingua Franca
(University of Nebraska Press, 2000). [Q175.37 .S65 2000]
8.
Pasteur (courtesy of Jeanne Norton)
Hammond,
D.B. Stories of Scientific Discovery. (Books for Libraries Press, 1969).
[Q141 .H25 1969]
Dubos,
R.J. Louis Pasteur: Free Lance of Science. (Little Brown and Co., 1950).
[Q143.P2 D78]
Duclaux,
E. Pasteur: The History of a Mind. (Scarecrow Reprint Corp., 1973).
[Q143.P2 D8 1973]
9.
Rosalind Franklin
Sayre,
A. Rosalind Franklin and DNA. (Norton, 1975). [QP26.F68 S29 1975]
Maddox,
B. Rosalind Franklin: the Dark Lady of DNA. [QP26.F68 M33 2002]
10.
Milgram (courtesy of Katherine Davis)
Blass, T. “The Man Who
Shocked the World,” Psychology Today 35(2); 2002: 68-74.
Miller, A. The Obedience
Experiments: A Case Study of Controversy in Social Science. New York: Praeger Special Studies, 1986.
Murray, T. “Learning to
Deceive,” Hastings Center Report 1980: 13-20.
Milgram, S. “Subject
Reaction: The Neglected Factor in the Ethics of Experimentation,” Hastings
Center Report 1977: 2-12.
Milgram, S. “Behavioral
Study of Obedience,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(4);
1963: 371-78.
11.
Kennedy Krieger Lead Abatement Study
Shamoo, A. E. “Ethically
Questionable Research with Childern: The Kennedy Kriger Lead Abatement Study,” Accountability
in Research 9; 2002: 167-75.
Mastroianni, A. C. and J. P.
Kahn, “Risk and Responsibility: Ethics, Crimes v Kennedy Krieger, and Public
Health Research Involving Children,” J. Public Health 92(7); July 2002:
1073-77.
Glantz, L. H.
“Nontherapeutic Research with Children: Crimes v Kennedy Krieger Institute,” Amer
J. Public Health 92(7); July 2002: 1070-74.
Nelson, R. M.
“Nontherapeutic Research Minimal Risk, and the Kennedy Krieger Lead Abatement
Study,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 23(6); 2001: 7-11.
12.
The Fenfluramine Study
Shamoo, A. E. and C. A. Turner,
“Ethically Questionable Research with Children: The Fenfluramine Study,” Accountability
in Research 9; 2002: 143-66.
13.
John Darsee (courtesy of Colin Whitmore)
http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/09/24/3d8f904e1362c
http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/data/darsee.htm
http://onlineethics.org/edu/precol/classroom/cs1.html
14.
Marie Curie (courtesy of Tety Kwee)
http://www.aip.org/history/curie
Quinn,
S. Marie Curie(Simon & Schuster, 1995)
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/label_france/ENGLISH/SCIENCES/CURIE/marie.html
15.
Other Cases
Holden,
C. “Bones Decision Rattles Researchers,” Science 289; Sept. 29, 2000:
2257
Comment: Conflict arise when the Interior Department
decides to give the 9300-year-old remains of Kennewick Man to the five Indian
Tribes that claimed them, instead of the scientist who want to research the
remains.
Mann,
C. C. “Misconduct Alleged in Yanomamo Studies,” Science 289; Sept. 29,
2000: 2251-2253. [Q1S354]
Monaghan, P. “Sociologist
Jailed Because He ‘Wouldn’t Snitch’ Ponders the Way Research Ought to Be Done” Chron.
Higher Ed. Sept. 1, 1993: A8-9.
Day,
R. A., How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. (Oryx Press, 1998).
“Careers
’95: The Future of the Ph. D.” Science 270; October 6, 1995: 121-146.
[Q1 S35]
Sieber, J.E. Planning
Ethically Responsible Research: A Guide for Students and Internal Review Boards.
(Sage Publications, 1992). [Q180.55.M67 S54 1992]
Shoenfeld,
C. Mentor in a Manual: Climbing the Academic Ladder to Tenure. (Magna
Publications, 1992).
Kanare,
H. Writing the Laboratory Notebook. (American Chemical Society, 1985).
A Stampede of Zebras, National Science
Foundation, 1996.
Elliott, D. et. al.
“Scientific Research Ethics Videography,” Professional Ethics 4(3 &
4); 1995: 199-204. [BJ1725 .P75]
Good Science and Responsible
Scientists: Contemporary Issues of Research Ethics, Mark Frankel and USM
Fairchild Series, 1994. [Q180.55.M67 F63 1994]
Ethical
Issues in Professional Life, Vol. 9: Ethics and Scientific Research,
Carnegie Mellon, 1993. [BJ 1725 .E84 1993]
Ethical
Issues in Scientific Research: A Public Forum, Sigma Xi, 1992. [Q 180.55 .M67 E84 1994]
Comment: Panel discusses issues of Authorship, Peer Review,
Data Handling, Social Responsibility, Fraud and Research Reporting.
Ethics
in America, No. 9: The Human Experiment, Columbia University Seminars on
Media & Society. [BJ 1012 .E8945x]
Comment: A discussion of human
experimentation with respect to a hypothetical new AIDS drug.
Protecting
Human Subjects,
National Library of Medicine, 1986(?). [R853.H8 P76 1986]
Fraud
in Science,
Nicholas Wade, Feb. 27, 1986 [Q 175.37 .W34 1986]
Comment: Lecture on how and why fraud in science happens,
highlighting some examples and themes from the book.