« Worms may keep multiple sclerosis at bay | Main | Doomsday draws two minutes closer »

Scientific misconduct

Do universities do a good job investigating accusations of misconduct?
What makes a scientist cheat in the first place?
And what has become of the subjects of past investigations? Nature finds out.
(You will need a subscription to access these links)

Misconduct? It's all academic...
Breeding cheats
Where are they now?
EDITORIAL Leading by example

Posted by Nicola Jones on January 17, 2007
Categories: | | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1744

Comments

There's a related story in The Scientist today, for those who are interested.

A Fluctuating Reality (http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/39386/)
Accused of fraud, Anders Pape Moller has traveled from superstar evolutionary biologist to pariah

Posted by: nicola jones | January 18, 2007 10:13 AM

It would be interesting to know how many fraud allegations Nature received let's say during last year, how many were investigated and what was the outcome.

Posted by: Alex | January 18, 2007 04:46 PM

I applaud Nature for this series of articles and it editorials. It very much seems to be on the right track: It is not science itself that needs to clean up its act, but rather the individual institutions that need to tighten up in taking the possibility of fraud seriously.

All misconduct is harmful to progress in science, and anything that can be done to restrain it is beneficial.

Posted by: Edward Schaefer | January 19, 2007 05:38 PM

We read about scientific misconduct by scientists. What do you call it when a science journal refuses to publish reproducible experimental results because they are at odds with a favourite theory?

Posted by: Percy N. Kruythoff | January 29, 2007 09:01 PM

In reviewing the pillory of A.P. Moller over his swallows' research, I was struck by the notion that even if pieces of the more extreme data were confused,(and I believe that not true), the remaining data are telling us something decidely odd about the selection of the adaptations.

Posted by: John White | April 16, 2007 06:56 PM

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. Note that attempting to post within 30 seconds of hitting ‘preview’ or ‘post’ can cause the system to think you are spamming the site. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'inthefield at nature.com'.

Search