Misconduct can be tricky to define, though nearly everyone agrees that it does n
ID: 3525251 • Letter: M
Question
Misconduct can be tricky to define, though nearly everyone agrees that it does not include honest error. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) categorizes misconduct into 3 groupings:
Misconduct in Science
- Data fabrication (making up data)
- Data falsification (changing data values)
- Plagiarism
Questionable Research Practices
Failing to retain important data for a reasonable period of time
Inadequate research records
Refusing to allow reasonable access to data by others
Using inappropriate statistical methods to enhance the significance of findings
Exploiting or inadequately supervising research subordinates
Naming authors without regard to significant contribution to the research reported
Other Misconduct
Harassment of personnel
Misuse of funds
Gross negligence
Vandalism
Violation of research regulations
Conflict of interest
1.) For your first post, construct a scenario in a clinical trial wherein one of these types of misconduct is occurring. (Keep it short—a few sentences or a paragraph.)
2.) When responding to someone else’s post, do both of the following:
Identify which category (or categories) this misconduct falls into.
If this misconduct is not corrected, how might the trial or its conclusions be affected?
Explanation / Answer
Exceedingly exposed instances of creation or distortion of information in clinical preliminaries have happened as of late and it is likely that there are extra undetected or unreported cases. We audit the accessible proof on the rate of information misrepresentation in clinical preliminaries, depict a few conspicuous cases, show data on inspiration and contributing components and talk about financially savvy methods for early location of information extortion as a feature of routine focal factual checking of information quality. Reception of these clinical preliminary observing systems can recognize potential information extortion not identified by regular on location checking and can enhance general information quality.
Honesty and truthfulness are bedrock principles of scientific research. Adherence to these principles is essential both for the progress of science and the public perception of scientific results. Deviations from these principles may generally be considered scientific misconduct or fraud, although the US Public Health Service defines research misconduct more narrowly, restricting it to the most egregious practice.
Scenario could be: based on cases data falsification, below 18 abortion practices in local clinics.
This purely misconduct in science because clinic people would be making up the data, putting false entry in terms of the age etc because abortion below 18 is not legal. Sometimes the details not stated even. IN addition, it is part of inadequate data as well.
There have been studies conducted on young people engaging in sexual act leading to abortion and having stress as well as trauma. There have been lot of question of effect it made on individual self.
Since it’s a more on inadequate data it might lead to less impactful solution on sex education etc.