Der Schutz von Whistleblower sollte eigentlich nach Willen der EU besser werden. Aber nach unendlichen Verzögerungen, zuletzt vor dem Vermittlungsausschuss des Bundestages, ist es damit nicht weit her, wenn nicht mal mehr anonyme Hinweise möglich sind. Einziger Trost: auch woanders nur”talk, no action”.
So wird das deutsche Gesetz wohl bald wieder einkassiert werden, das meint nicht nur Transparency Deutschland
Leider muss man in aller Deutlichkeit sagen: Der vorliegende Gesetzentwurf zum Schutz von Hinweisgeber:innen ist ein Fiasko. Die Bundesregierung muss dringend nachbessern, denn in der vorliegenden Form brächte das Gesetz neue Rechtsunsicherheiten für Whistleblower:innen, Unternehmen und Behörden. Anstatt den klaren Vorgaben und Empfehlungen der EU zu folgen, hat die Bundesregierung Stückwerk vorgelegt.
Many NIH cases of grant policy violations involve activities in China and scientists of Chinese origin, raising concerns about racial, ethnic, or political targeting. The disproportionate share may be related to the extensive reach of Chinese talent recruitment programs, which explicitly state preferences for ethnic Chinese scientists. NIH compliance reviews abide by the same procedures for all scientists irrespective of their demographics, and the inquiries include cases involving countries other than China.
Scholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other’s findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse.
This is a citation from the 2022 Faintuch book “Integrity of Scientific Research” at page 137. “Fraud, Misconduct, and Unethical Practices in Biomedical Research in China” by Lei and Qiu covers close collaborations between scientists and industry which is now standard in most universities and research centers
“The ass is dominant over the head” (pigu jueding naodai) … which means that a persons’s decision is made by her/his position. Faced with conflicts of interests, scientists tend to consider more their own or the company’s interests when they have close interaction with this company, This is why research must be regulated and supervised by regulatory bodies.
The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering our profession—and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce their best work…
The great majority of biomedical research is conducted by aspiring trainees: by graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. As a result, most successful biomedical scientists train far more scientists than are needed to replace him- or herself…
Competition in pursuit of experimental objectives has always been a part of the scientific enterprise, and it can have positive effects. However, hypercompetition for the resources and positions that are required to conduct science suppresses the creativity, cooperation, risk-taking, and original thinking required to make fundamental discoveries…
The inflated value given to publishing in a small number of so-called “high impact” journals has put pressure on authors to rush into print, cut corners, exaggerate their findings, and overstate the significance of their work.
I have a new book on my desk that covers most aspects of the recent discussion around research integrity in 60 chapters arranged in 14 sections.
It is a comprehensive overview of research integrity across disciplines. Maybe some chapters are not written by the leading experts in the field. And maybe the scope is super-broad with several off topic chapters like corruption in healthcare or repetitive texts in subdisciplines like dental care. Unfortunately this comes at the cost that other chapters like image integrity are completely missing, while even PubPeer is not mentioned in the appendix. Also a keyword index would be nice. Nevertheless it is the largest body of text so far and should be on every desk that deals with science integrity. There are numerous highlights that cannot be found anywhere else like a comprehensive list of all paper rejection statements (p 412). So I will have to read it again next year.
Reed Elsevier’s response is that the sale of military equipment is legal, government supported, and tightly regulated. However, The Lancet‘s collaborations in child survival and health-systems strengthening, for example, risk being tainted by Reed Elsevier’s promotion of the “selling process” of arms.
Of course you can’t sell weapons and distance yourself from selling weapons at the same time…
More content is great. But, how much of that discovery turns out to be unreliable?
“The number was 2700 in 2020, but we have 3000 retractions a year now,” says Oransky. The steady increase of retractions from year to year is a pattern that can be observed back to the beginning of Retraction Watch, and there’s no indication of slowing down.
Papers are not sacred – this what I have been advocating even after having personal distress after commenting on a PLoS ONE paper. Nevertheless, the new Nature editorial supports my view
What is needed, instead, is a system of publication that is more meritocratic in its evaluation of performance and productivity in the sciences. It should expand the record of a scientific study past an individual paper, including additional material such as worthy blog posts about the results, media coverage and the number of times that the paper has been downloaded.