Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Experiment Videos

Reflections of a whistle-blower.

E J Rossiter

    Nature
    |June 11, 1992
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Scientific fraud, though recently prominent, has a long history. This article details a specific historical instance of research misconduct.

    Keywords:
    Biomedical and Behavioral ResearchDeakin University (Australia)

    Related Experiment Videos

    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

    The Geelong study.

    Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992). Supplement·1993
    Same author

    The use of developmental screening and assessment instruments by paediatricians in Australia.

    Journal of paediatrics and child health·1993
    Same author

    Rectal bleeding in a baby of three months.

    Australian paediatric journal·1982
    Same author

    Screening for learning problems in the first year at school.

    Australian paediatric journal·1981
    Same author

    Hexachlorophene--time to stop.

    Australian paediatric journal·1980
    Same author

    Convulsions in the first three years of life.

    The Medical journal of Australia·1977
    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

    Area of Science:

    • Scientific integrity
    • Research ethics
    • Academic misconduct

    Background:

    • Scientific fraud is an ongoing issue in research.
    • Historical cases of scientific misconduct are documented.

    Discussion:

    • Examining past instances of scientific fraud provides valuable lessons.
    • Personal accounts offer unique insights into research misconduct.

    Key Insights:

    • Scientific fraud is not a new phenomenon.
    • Understanding historical cases is crucial for addressing current issues.

    Outlook:

    • Continued vigilance is needed to uphold research integrity.
    • Learning from past misconduct can inform future ethical guidelines.