Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Dipak Das (US), former director of the Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Connecticut Health Center, was found in a University investigation to be guilty of 145 counts of fabrication or falsification of research data. [59] [60] As of 2023, Das has had 23 of his research publications retracted. [61] [62]
Eric T. Poehlman (born c. 1956), is an American scientist, formerly researching in the field of human obesity and aging.In 2000, Poehlman was investigated for scientific misconduct; the case continued for several years and in 2005, he admitted to fraudulent research practices.
A reconstruction of the skull purportedly belonging to the Piltdown Man, a long-lasting case of scientific misconduct. Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research.
In scientific inquiry and academic research, data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research results. As with other forms of scientific misconduct, it is the intent to deceive that marks fabrication as unethical, and thus different from scientists deceiving themselves. There are many ways data can be fabricated.
In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school "research review" to "non-specific colitis". The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital.
Following the conclusion of the EPA's investigation, the Department of Justice announced on February 25, 1994, that the president of Craven Laboratories and fourteen of its former employees were adjudged guilty for the falsification of research data.
The concrete impact of codes of conduct and other measures put in place to ensure research integrity remain uncertain. Several case studies have highlighted that while the principles of typical codes of conduct adhere to common scientific ideals, they are seen as remote from actual work practices and their efficiency is criticized.
The funding is for replication based on reanalysis of existing data and replication by collecting and analysing new data. Funding is available in the areas of social sciences, health research and healthcare innovation. [206] In 2013, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation funded the launch of The Center for Open Science with a $5.25 million grant.