On blacklisting in science

Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):301-303 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In 1999 Science and Engineering Ethics published a special issue “Scientific Misconduct” in which James Lubalin and Jennifer Matheson discussed the sequelae of allegations of scientific misconduct [1]. An important finding highlighted in their analysis is that a substantial majority of both those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct and whistleblowers experienced negative consequences in their personal and professional lives. Professional reputation is critically important to career advancement and personal well-being. This Letter to the Editors discusses blacklisting, an insidious, ethically problematic process which is likely to produce the negative consequences described by Lubalin and Matheson. It is a topic that merits attention by the scientific community—SJB

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,937

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Research misconduct: Why are definitions so elusive?Robert Hauptman - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):443-444.
Publicizing scientific misconduct and its consequences.Stephanie J. Bird - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3):435-436.
Misconduct in science and the German law.Stefanic Stegemann-Bochl - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):57-62.
The american experience: Lessons learned. [REVIEW]Lawrence J. Rhoades - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):95-107.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
18 (#1,112,360)

6 months
5 (#1,039,842)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?