How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards

Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51-64 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Filing charges of scientific misconduct can be a risky and dangerous endeavor. This article presents rules of conduct to follow when considering whether to report perceived misconduct, and a set of step-by-step procedures for responsible whistleblowing that describe how to do so once the decision to report misconduct has been made. This advice is framed within the university setting, and may not apply fully in industrial settings.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1007/s11948-998-0007-0

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,566

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Applications to the industrial sector: Commentary on “how to blow the whistle and still have a Career Afterwards”.Roger M. Boisjoly - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):71-74.
Applications to the industrial sector: Commentary on “how to blow the whistle and still have a Career Afterwards” (C.K. Gunsalus). [REVIEW]Roger Biosjoly - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):71-74.
Can you whistle while you work?: Commentary on “how to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards”.Howard Gadlin - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):65-69.
To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors.Michael D. Mumford, Shane Connelly, Alexandra E. MacDougall, Logan Steele, Paul Partlow, Megan Turner, Cory Higgs & Tristan McIntosh - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):171-210.
To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors.Tristan McIntosh, Cory Higgs, Megan Turner, Paul Partlow, Logan Steele, Alexandra E. MacDougall, Shane Connelly & Michael D. Mumford - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):171-210.
Falsification of Credentials in the Research Setting; Scientific Misconduct?Debra M. Parrish - 1996 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 24 (3):260-266.
Falsification of Credentials in the Research Setting; Scientific Misconduct?Debra M. Parrish - 1996 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 24 (3):260-266.
What’s in it for Me? An Examination of Accounting Students’ Likelihood to Report Faculty Misconduct.Joanne C. Jones, Gary Spraakman & Cristóbal Sánchez-Rodríguez - 2014 - Journal of Business Ethics 123 (4):645-667.
Why fallout from whistleblowing is hard to avoid: Commentary on “The fallout: What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?”.Joan E. Sieber - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):255-260.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
143 (#162,480)

6 months
12 (#258,124)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Whistle-Blowing and Morality.Mathieu Bouville - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 81 (3):579-585.
The psychology of whistleblowing.Joan E. Sieber - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):7-23.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references