Scientific Misconduct

[agapooka]

I've often heard it said that science is designed to fix its flaws, but after reading the following, I'm not sure that we can depend upon its particular method of accomplishing this.

The potentially severe consequences for individuals who are found to have engaged in misconduct also reflect back on the institutions that host or employ them and also on the participants in any peer review process that has allowed the publication of questionable research. This means that a range of actors in any case may have a motivation to suppress any evidence or suggestion of misconduct. This means that persons who expose such cases can find themselves open to retaliation by a number of different means. These negative consequences for exposers of misconduct have driven the development of whistle blowers charters - designed to protect those who raise concerns. A whistleblower is almost always alone in his fight - his career becomes completely dependent on the decision about alleged misconduct. If the accusations prove false, his career is completely destroyed, but even in case of positive decision the career of the whistleblower can be under question: his reputation of "troublemen" will prevent many employers from hiring him. There is no international body where a whistleblower could give his concerns. If a university fails to investigate suspected fraud or provides a fake investigation to save their reputation the whistleblower has no right of appeal. High profile journals like "Nature" and "Science" usually forward all allegations to the university where the authors are employed, or may do nothing at all. An organized web community of scientific whistleblowers also does not exist.

[GhostyGoo]

I whole-heartedly agree with you my learned friend. One person i always cite in this debate is Dr. Phyllis Mullinex.

http://www.global-elite.org/node/182

She basically tried to stop toxic nuclear waste being dumped in our water supply. The whistle blowing was "dealt with" in such an extreme manner that very few people are actually even aware that Flouride is nuclear waste.

Whistle blowing on the whole is negatively represented on it's face, ie even the name is a negative representation of something fundamentally essential to positivist empiricism where scientific research is concerned.

Another alarming example of "whistle blowing" being negatively represented in society is the health care system. In Britian alone hundreds of our elderly and mentally impaired are abused on a daily basis and nothing is ever done because to report a case of abuse "outside of house" ie to a newspaper or independent authority will cost you your career.

A very good friend of mine who worked in a residential care home caught, on three occasions, a colleague bending back the fingers of a 94 yr old woman because she was unable to urinate on command. The incidences were reported through the proper channels to the immediate superiors and nothing was done. Another incident occured, after the reported concerns, where the same colleague was "somehow" involved in a report of a client having a broken finger, oddly enough it occured while the client was on the commode (a portable toilet) and in the presence of said care assistant. The incident was documented as accidental. My friend, having had enough, went to a local newspaper. The local newspaper sent an undercover investigative reporter to the care home in question and several cases of abuse were brought to light and subsequently the home was closed for business and the owner prosecuted.

My friend? Works in Tescos. Why? The NHS has labelled her a whistle blower and no Residential Home in the UK will touch her.

-Goo™

[[KMA]Avenger]

I whole-heartedly agree with you my learned friend. One person i always cite in this debate is Dr. Phyllis Mullinex.

http://www.global-elite.org/node/182

She basically tried to stop toxic nuclear waste being dumped in our water supply. The whistle blowing was "dealt with" in such an extreme manner that very few people are actually even aware that Fluoride is nuclear waste.

viewtopic.php?f=167&t=124291

Whistle blowing on the whole is negatively represented on it's face, i.e. even the name is a negative representation of something fundamentally essential to positivist empiricism where scientific research is concerned.

Another alarming example of "whistle blowing" being negatively represented in society is the health care system. In Britain alone hundreds of our elderly and mentally impaired are abused on a daily basis and nothing is ever done because to report a case of abuse "outside of house" i.e. to a newspaper or independent authority will cost you your career.

A very good friend of mine who worked in a residential care home caught, on three occasions, a colleague bending back the fingers of a 94 yr old woman because she was unable to urinate on command. The incidences were reported through the proper channels to the immediate superiors and nothing was done. Another incident occurred, after the reported concerns, where the same colleague was "somehow" involved in a report of a client having a broken finger, oddly enough it occurred while the client was on the commode (a portable toilet) and in the presence of said care assistant. The incident was documented as accidental. My friend, having had enough, went to a local newspaper. The local newspaper sent an undercover investigative reporter to the care home in question and several cases of abuse were brought to light and subsequently the home was closed for business and the owner prosecuted.

My friend? Works in Tescos. Why? The NHS has labelled her a whistle blower and no Residential Home in the UK will touch her.

-Goo™

cases like that are outrageous BUT, all to frequent...

my sympathies go out to your friend