ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch IntegrityDisagreement over the legal definition of misconduct – Nature INDEX (Yojana Sharma | January 2018)

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Disagreement over the legal definition of misconduct – Nature INDEX (Yojana Sharma | January 2018)

Published/Released on January 09, 2018 | Posted by Admin on January 15, 2018 / , , , , , , , ,
 


View full details | Go to resource


A dispute between Australia’s major research funding agencies and universities over the definition of research misconduct has revealed global inconsistencies in the way misconduct is defined and regulated, as well as its ambiguous legal status.

The 2007 Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, which is under review, included a definition that many universities say make it difficult to establish misconduct. It required institutions to prove that acts of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism were intentional and deliberate, as well as that negligence or recklessness had taken place. Many universities did not adopt the description.

“There are a variety of behaviours that scientists consider to be seriously unethical,” says David Resnik, a bioethicist at the NIH National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in the United States. The challenge is “deciding which are the most important to prevent.” Australia in the hot seat.

Read the rest of this discussion piece



Resources Menu

Research Integrity


Human Research Ethics