Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 601
Rev Med Interne ; 41(5): 330-334, 2020 May.
Artigo em Francês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32107052


Scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) and detrimental research practices (selective reporting of data, inappropriate citation practice, ghostwriting) are admitted respectively by 2 % and 33 % of researchers. The consequences of scientific misconduct and detrimental research practices are disastrous, both for the doctors, who are the most affected researchers in view of the number of retracted articles, and for the patients, victims of false information that may have health consequences. In order to fight against the causes (promotion of doctors and allocation of resources to clinical wards and laboratories on purely quantitative research criteria, lack of training in scientific integrity in medical studies, heterogenous quality of reviewing, legal impunity), there are legislative, academic, technological and editorial solutions, but radical and urgent cultural change is needed first.

Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Má Conduta Científica , Pesquisa Biomédica/história , Pesquisa Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Decepção , Políticas Editoriais , Europa (Continente) , França , Fraude/ética , Fraude/história , Fraude/legislação & jurisprudência , História do Século XX , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Legislação como Assunto , Plágio , Publicações/história , Publicações/legislação & jurisprudência , Publicações/normas , Má Conduta Científica/classificação , Má Conduta Científica/história , Má Conduta Científica/legislação & jurisprudência
Dev World Bioeth ; 19(2): 64-75, 2019 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31091553


BACKGROUND: Scientific researchers are expected to follow the professional norms in their own domain. With a growing number of scientific publications retracted and research misconduct cases revealed in recent years, Chinese biomedical research integrity is questioned. As institutions educating and training future researchers, universities and the guidance they provide are important for the research quality and integrity of the country. Therefore, through a review of the guidance and policy documents on research integrity in Chinese universities, this work aims to investigate how the professional norms are specified in these documents. METHODS: After a stratified sampling, 53 universities were selected. Their guidance and policy documents on research integrity were collected via a web search of their official websites. The search was confirmed by these universities. Then the content of all the collected documents were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: 118 active university documents were collected and analyzed. Most of the Chinese universities we investigated had their own guidance or policy on research integrity. They listed principles or examples of desired and undesired academic practices, investigation procedures and punishments of academic misconduct, and put forward measures to promote research integrity. Differences on specific practices and principles were observed between university groups and with European university documents. CONCLUSION: Despite the discrepancy they have, all these documents were designed to promote research integrity and cultivate a good research environment in Chinese biomedical domain. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement, for example, through more consultation of international guidance.

Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Pesquisadores/normas , Má Conduta Científica/ética , Universidades/ética , Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Pesquisa Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , China , Ética em Pesquisa , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Plágio , Formulação de Políticas , Pesquisadores/legislação & jurisprudência , Má Conduta Científica/legislação & jurisprudência , Universidades/legislação & jurisprudência
Hum Biol ; 91(1): 5-8, 2019 02 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32073240


Controversies resulting from genetic testing on skeletal remains of disputed stewardship raise important questions about obligations inherent on genetic researchers to assure ethical chain of custody. In this article, we analyze and evaluate several proposed positions on whether such research should be published. Following jurisprudential standards for legitimate regulatory systems, we argue that responsible conduct of research requires reasonable attention to chain of custody but cannot require guarantees, particularly in cases of ancient remains.

Ética em Pesquisa , Feto , Testes Genéticos/legislação & jurisprudência , Má Conduta Científica/legislação & jurisprudência , Códigos de Ética , Feto/patologia , Testes Genéticos/ética , Humanos , Pessoalidade , Má Conduta Científica/ética
Med Health Care Philos ; 22(2): 245-252, 2019 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30155851


This paper discusses the criminalization of scientific misconduct, as discussed and defended in the bioethics literature. In doing so it argues against the claim that fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) together identify the most serious forms of misconduct, which hence ought to be criminalized, whereas other forms of misconduct should not. Drawing the line strictly at FFP is problematic both in terms of what is included and what is excluded. It is also argued that the criminalization of scientific misconduct, despite its anticipated benefits, is at risk of giving the false impression that dubious practices falling outside the legal regulation "do not count". Some doubts are also raised concerning whether criminalization of the most serious forms of misconduct will lower the burdens for universities or successfully increase research integrity. Rather, with or without criminalization, other measures must be taken and are probably more important in order to foster a more healthy research environment.

Pesquisa Biomédica/ética , Pesquisa Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , Comportamento Criminoso/ética , Má Conduta Científica/ética , Má Conduta Científica/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Filosofia Médica , Plágio
Sci Eng Ethics ; 25(3): 771-789, 2019 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29460082


It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data. Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. We tested multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications. Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, as was predicted based on the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Categories 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. No clear support was found for the "pressures to publish" hypothesis. Female authors were found to be equally likely to publish duplicated images compared to males. Country-level parameters generally exhibited stronger effects than individual-level parameters, because developing countries were significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. This suggests that promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.

Intenção , Editoração , Má Conduta Científica/ética , Má Conduta Científica/psicologia , Má Conduta Científica/estatística & dados numéricos , Países Desenvolvidos , Países em Desenvolvimento , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Análise por Pareamento , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Prevalência , Risco , Má Conduta Científica/legislação & jurisprudência , Fatores Sexuais , Controle Social Formal
Rev. derecho genoma hum ; (n.extr): 569-598, 2019.
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-191294


La protección de la intimidad y de los datos personales reservados es una de las bases fundamentales de la relación entre médico y paciente. A pesar de ello, en ocasiones, los facultativos transmiten a un tercero los datos contenidos en la historia clínica incurriendo en un delito perseguible desde el derecho penal. Este artículo comienza analizando los artículos 197 a 201 del Código Penal español para contextualizar la materia a tratar y otorgar una visión amplia de esta modalidad delictiva, y se centra después en el artículo 199.2 del mismo texto legal por ser el que, de manera específica, se aplica a los profesionales sanitarios obligados al sigilo que incurren en dicha conducta. Además, se hace una útil mención a aspectos prácticos como el alcance del secreto profesional del médico o las causas de exclusión del mismo. Por último, se analiza la jurisprudencia existente en relación con la cuestión, a pesar de su escasez. El presente artículo pretende servir por igual a profesionales del derecho y de la medicina para comprender más en profundidad, siempre desde la perspectiva del derecho penal, el descubrimiento y revelación de secretos en el ámbito sanitario

The protection of privacy and private personal data is one of the cornerstones of the physician-patient relationship. In spite of this, doctors sometimes transmit the data contained in the medical history to a third party, thereby committing a crime that can be prosecuted under criminal law. This article begins by analysing articles 197 to 201 of the Spanish Criminal Code in order to contextualize the matter to be dealt with and give a broad view of this type of crime. It then focuses on article 199.2 of the same legal text because it is the one which specifically applies to health professionals forced to secrecy who engage in such conduct. In addition, it includes a useful mention of practical aspects such as the scope of the physician's professional secrecy or the causes of exclusion from it. Finally, it analyses the existing jurisprudence in relation to the issue, despite its scarcity. This article aims to serve law and medicine professionals alike to understand more deeply, always from the perspective of criminal law, the discovery and disclosure of secrets in the health field

Humanos , Má Conduta Científica/legislação & jurisprudência , Privacidade/legislação & jurisprudência , Confidencialidade/legislação & jurisprudência , Registros de Saúde Pessoal , Legislação Médica/tendências , Jurisprudência , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido/legislação & jurisprudência