Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

On being a whistleblower: the Needleman case.

Claire B Ernhart, Sandra Scarr, David F Geneson

    Ethics & Behavior
    |January 1, 1993
    PubMed
    Summary

    Scientific integrity demands reporting research misconduct. Whistleblowers faced obstacles when examining a pivotal low-level lead exposure study, raising concerns about scientific misconduct processes.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Effects of lead on IQ in children.

    Environmental health perspectives·2006
    Same author

    Ethical problems in research on risky behaviors and risky populations.

    Ethics & behavior·1994
    Same author

    Of whistleblowers, investigators, and judges.

    Ethics & behavior·1993
    Same author

    The rights and responsibilities of the social scientist.

    The American psychologist·1978

    Area of Science:

    • Environmental Health
    • Research Integrity
    • Pediatric Health

    Background:

    • A 1979 study on low-level lead exposure in children significantly influenced public policy.
    • Concerns arose regarding the integrity of the subject selection and data analysis in this influential study.
    • The authors acted as whistleblowers to report suspected scientific misconduct.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To detail the authors' experience as whistleblowers concerning a high-profile lead exposure study.
    • To highlight issues encountered when attempting to disclose observations of potential scientific misconduct.
    • To advocate for improved processes for handling allegations of scientific misconduct.

    Main Methods:

    • The authors describe their role as whistleblowers in the Herbert Needleman case.
    Keywords:
    Biomedical and Behavioral ResearchEnvironmental Protection AgencyNational Institutes of HealthOffice of Scientific IntegrityUniversity of Pittsburgh

    Related Experiment Videos

  • They recount the premature halt of their examination of subject selection and data analysis.
  • The narrative focuses on the challenges faced in disclosing their findings.

    • Main Results:

    • Efforts were made to prevent the disclosure of the whistleblowers' observations.
    • The examination of the study's methodology was cut short, preventing a full evaluation.
    • Serious concerns regarding the study's integrity were noted despite the limited examination.

    Conclusions:

    • The authors express hope that their experience will lead to revisions in scientific misconduct handling procedures.
    • They aim to reduce negative consequences for scientists who report misconduct.
    • The case underscores the importance of robust and transparent processes for addressing research integrity concerns.