John D'Angelo
Ethics in Science (eBook, ePUB)
Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research, Second Edition
Schade – dieser Artikel ist leider ausverkauft. Sobald wir wissen, ob und wann der Artikel wieder verfügbar ist, informieren wir Sie an dieser Stelle.
John D'Angelo
Ethics in Science (eBook, ePUB)
Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research, Second Edition
- Format: ePub
- Merkliste
- Auf die Merkliste
- Bewerten Bewerten
- Teilen
- Produkt teilen
- Produkterinnerung
- Produkterinnerung
Bitte loggen Sie sich zunächst in Ihr Kundenkonto ein oder registrieren Sie sich bei
bücher.de, um das eBook-Abo tolino select nutzen zu können.
Hier können Sie sich einloggen
Hier können Sie sich einloggen
Sie sind bereits eingeloggt. Klicken Sie auf 2. tolino select Abo, um fortzufahren.
Bitte loggen Sie sich zunächst in Ihr Kundenkonto ein oder registrieren Sie sich bei bücher.de, um das eBook-Abo tolino select nutzen zu können.
Providing the tools necessary for a robust debate, this fully revised and updated second edition of Ethics in Science: Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research explains various forms of scientific misconduct.
- Geräte: eReader
- mit Kopierschutz
- eBook Hilfe
- Größe: 1.35MB
Providing the tools necessary for a robust debate, this fully revised and updated second edition of Ethics in Science: Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research explains various forms of scientific misconduct.
Dieser Download kann aus rechtlichen Gründen nur mit Rechnungsadresse in A, B, BG, CY, CZ, D, DK, EW, E, FIN, F, GR, HR, H, IRL, I, LT, L, LR, M, NL, PL, P, R, S, SLO, SK ausgeliefert werden.
Produktdetails
- Produktdetails
- Verlag: Taylor & Francis
- Seitenzahl: 160
- Erscheinungstermin: 7. Dezember 2018
- Englisch
- ISBN-13: 9781351974646
- Artikelnr.: 54785361
- Verlag: Taylor & Francis
- Seitenzahl: 160
- Erscheinungstermin: 7. Dezember 2018
- Englisch
- ISBN-13: 9781351974646
- Artikelnr.: 54785361
Stony Brook University, Bachelor of Science (BS), Chemistry, 1996 - 2000
The University of Connecticut, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Chemistry, 2000 - 2005
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Johns Hopkins University,2005 - 2007
Alfred University, NY, August 2007 - Present
John D'Angelo teaches the following courses: Organic Chemistry I & II and associated labs; General Chemistry I & II labs and occasionally lectures; Basic (non majors) Organic Chemistry; How Science Changed the World (As a First Year Experience Course). He is also the current President of the Faculty Senate.
The University of Connecticut, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Chemistry, 2000 - 2005
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Johns Hopkins University,2005 - 2007
Alfred University, NY, August 2007 - Present
John D'Angelo teaches the following courses: Organic Chemistry I & II and associated labs; General Chemistry I & II labs and occasionally lectures; Basic (non majors) Organic Chemistry; How Science Changed the World (As a First Year Experience Course). He is also the current President of the Faculty Senate.
Scientific misconduct in research: What is it, why does it happen, and how
do we identify when it happens?
* What constitutes scientific misconduct?
* Authorship and intellectual property.
* Bad ethics vs. bad science.
* New results that prove old results wrong.
* The whistle-blower's dilemma.
What are the penalties for scientific misconduct?
* Human and animal subjects.
What is peer review's role in scientific misconduct?
* Revisiting Vlad and Frankie.
* Can peer reviewers be unethical?
* What effect on the public does scientific misconduct have?
* MMR and autism.
* Climategate.
* HIV vaccine.
* Animal rights groups.
* Cold fusion.
* Bernard Kettlewell.
* Electromagnetic field and high-tension power lines.
* Fracking and pollution.
What constitutes responsible conduct from the point+A76 of view of human
and animal subjects in research?
The ethics of the pharmaceutical industry.
Science and the public.
The role of government in scientific misconduct?
The responsibility of science to the environment.
Is there some research that shouldn't be done because of threats the
results may pose to society?
Summary of ethics guidelines of STEM professional societies.
Can Scientific misconduct be prevented?
* Intentional negligence in acknowledgment of previous work.
* Deliberate fabrication of data.
* Deliberate omission of known data that doesn't agree with hypotheses.
* Passing another researcher's data as one's own.
* Publication of results without consent of all the researchers.
* Failure to acknowledge all the researchers who performed the work.
* Conflict-of-interest issues.
* Repeated publication of too-similar results.
* Breach of confidentiality.
* Misrepresenting others' work.
* Wrapping up.
* Case Studies.
* Darwin and Wallace.
* Rangaswamy Srinivasan-VISX patent dispute.
* Schwartz and Mirkin.
* Corey and Woodward.
* Córdova, Scripps Research Institute, and Stockholm University.
* La Clair and hexacyclinol.
* Woodward and quinine.
* DNA.
* David Baltimore and Teresa Imanishi-Kari.
* John Fenn-Yale patent dispute.
* VIOXX®.
Index.
do we identify when it happens?
* What constitutes scientific misconduct?
* Authorship and intellectual property.
* Bad ethics vs. bad science.
* New results that prove old results wrong.
* The whistle-blower's dilemma.
What are the penalties for scientific misconduct?
* Human and animal subjects.
What is peer review's role in scientific misconduct?
* Revisiting Vlad and Frankie.
* Can peer reviewers be unethical?
* What effect on the public does scientific misconduct have?
* MMR and autism.
* Climategate.
* HIV vaccine.
* Animal rights groups.
* Cold fusion.
* Bernard Kettlewell.
* Electromagnetic field and high-tension power lines.
* Fracking and pollution.
What constitutes responsible conduct from the point+A76 of view of human
and animal subjects in research?
The ethics of the pharmaceutical industry.
Science and the public.
The role of government in scientific misconduct?
The responsibility of science to the environment.
Is there some research that shouldn't be done because of threats the
results may pose to society?
Summary of ethics guidelines of STEM professional societies.
Can Scientific misconduct be prevented?
* Intentional negligence in acknowledgment of previous work.
* Deliberate fabrication of data.
* Deliberate omission of known data that doesn't agree with hypotheses.
* Passing another researcher's data as one's own.
* Publication of results without consent of all the researchers.
* Failure to acknowledge all the researchers who performed the work.
* Conflict-of-interest issues.
* Repeated publication of too-similar results.
* Breach of confidentiality.
* Misrepresenting others' work.
* Wrapping up.
* Case Studies.
* Darwin and Wallace.
* Rangaswamy Srinivasan-VISX patent dispute.
* Schwartz and Mirkin.
* Corey and Woodward.
* Córdova, Scripps Research Institute, and Stockholm University.
* La Clair and hexacyclinol.
* Woodward and quinine.
* DNA.
* David Baltimore and Teresa Imanishi-Kari.
* John Fenn-Yale patent dispute.
* VIOXX®.
Index.
Scientific misconduct in research: What is it, why does it happen, and how
do we identify when it happens?
* What constitutes scientific misconduct?
* Authorship and intellectual property.
* Bad ethics vs. bad science.
* New results that prove old results wrong.
* The whistle-blower's dilemma.
What are the penalties for scientific misconduct?
* Human and animal subjects.
What is peer review's role in scientific misconduct?
* Revisiting Vlad and Frankie.
* Can peer reviewers be unethical?
* What effect on the public does scientific misconduct have?
* MMR and autism.
* Climategate.
* HIV vaccine.
* Animal rights groups.
* Cold fusion.
* Bernard Kettlewell.
* Electromagnetic field and high-tension power lines.
* Fracking and pollution.
What constitutes responsible conduct from the point+A76 of view of human
and animal subjects in research?
The ethics of the pharmaceutical industry.
Science and the public.
The role of government in scientific misconduct?
The responsibility of science to the environment.
Is there some research that shouldn't be done because of threats the
results may pose to society?
Summary of ethics guidelines of STEM professional societies.
Can Scientific misconduct be prevented?
* Intentional negligence in acknowledgment of previous work.
* Deliberate fabrication of data.
* Deliberate omission of known data that doesn't agree with hypotheses.
* Passing another researcher's data as one's own.
* Publication of results without consent of all the researchers.
* Failure to acknowledge all the researchers who performed the work.
* Conflict-of-interest issues.
* Repeated publication of too-similar results.
* Breach of confidentiality.
* Misrepresenting others' work.
* Wrapping up.
* Case Studies.
* Darwin and Wallace.
* Rangaswamy Srinivasan-VISX patent dispute.
* Schwartz and Mirkin.
* Corey and Woodward.
* Córdova, Scripps Research Institute, and Stockholm University.
* La Clair and hexacyclinol.
* Woodward and quinine.
* DNA.
* David Baltimore and Teresa Imanishi-Kari.
* John Fenn-Yale patent dispute.
* VIOXX®.
Index.
do we identify when it happens?
* What constitutes scientific misconduct?
* Authorship and intellectual property.
* Bad ethics vs. bad science.
* New results that prove old results wrong.
* The whistle-blower's dilemma.
What are the penalties for scientific misconduct?
* Human and animal subjects.
What is peer review's role in scientific misconduct?
* Revisiting Vlad and Frankie.
* Can peer reviewers be unethical?
* What effect on the public does scientific misconduct have?
* MMR and autism.
* Climategate.
* HIV vaccine.
* Animal rights groups.
* Cold fusion.
* Bernard Kettlewell.
* Electromagnetic field and high-tension power lines.
* Fracking and pollution.
What constitutes responsible conduct from the point+A76 of view of human
and animal subjects in research?
The ethics of the pharmaceutical industry.
Science and the public.
The role of government in scientific misconduct?
The responsibility of science to the environment.
Is there some research that shouldn't be done because of threats the
results may pose to society?
Summary of ethics guidelines of STEM professional societies.
Can Scientific misconduct be prevented?
* Intentional negligence in acknowledgment of previous work.
* Deliberate fabrication of data.
* Deliberate omission of known data that doesn't agree with hypotheses.
* Passing another researcher's data as one's own.
* Publication of results without consent of all the researchers.
* Failure to acknowledge all the researchers who performed the work.
* Conflict-of-interest issues.
* Repeated publication of too-similar results.
* Breach of confidentiality.
* Misrepresenting others' work.
* Wrapping up.
* Case Studies.
* Darwin and Wallace.
* Rangaswamy Srinivasan-VISX patent dispute.
* Schwartz and Mirkin.
* Corey and Woodward.
* Córdova, Scripps Research Institute, and Stockholm University.
* La Clair and hexacyclinol.
* Woodward and quinine.
* DNA.
* David Baltimore and Teresa Imanishi-Kari.
* John Fenn-Yale patent dispute.
* VIOXX®.
Index.