In this sort of case, the violation is clearly identified and there is no defense. Some journals have guidelines that prohibit the submission of a rejected manuscript to particular other journals. For example, if a manuscript submitted as a brief communication to the Journal of Organic Chemistry is declined, the same manuscript cannot be resubmitted to the journal Organic Letters as a note.
When applying for a research grant from the National Science Foundation NSF , the authors must list all other grants that are either active or under review. Although it is ordinarily meant to be a guide to measure if the proposing author will have the time to do this work, it can also be used to ensure the authors do not submit the same grant to multiple funding agencies.
It should be noted here, however, that grants, unlike research reports, can be submitted to multiple places with minimal alterations to fit the specific scope of any one organization. However, some organizations for example, the NSF require authors to disclose all active and submitted grants. Although this is not necessarily done as a check on multiple submissions, it can function in this capacity as well. Breach of confidentiality What is it? These confidentiality agreements are signed for a reason. It is necessary and in fact more unethical to not do so, as neglecting to do so represents a failure to acknowledge previous work done.
That being said, if no agree- ments have been signed, the argument can be made that no violation has occurred. Legally speaking, this is probably indeed correct. However, the reality of the matter is that this would still represent scientific misconduct as the professional code goes above and beyond the legal code in this and other examples. Another brand of conflict of interest or breach of confi- dentiality may be when a reviewer does not keep information for herself but passes it on to a colleague who is competing in the same area as the author with the work under review.
Breaches of confidentiality are also discretely different from gamesmanship. To start out simply, let us use a sports-related case of gamesmanship. Football player Peyton Manning, quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts, is renowned for his ability to call plays at the line of scrimmage. Some of his opponents especially the defenses of the Baltimore Ravens and the Tennessee Titans have played against Manning so long that they have become familiar with the audible calls he uses. Nobody would consider either of these issues a violation of some ethical code.
Likewise, it is not a violation of any kind for one university to investi- gate how another university does something and then clearly articu- late to prospective students why it employs a superior tactic to what the competing universities offer their students.
Coming back to the world of science, if a former Pfizer employee informed his new place of employment, Johnson and Johnson, that Pfizer had plans to hire new research and development chemists working in the heart medica- tion unit, it would certainly not be a breach of ethical codes for Johnson and Johnson to go out of its way to make sure its best scientists in that unit were not wooed away by Pfizer.
Although it may be an exces- sively aggressive reaction, it likewise would not be a breach of code for Johnson and Johnson to also hire new chemists for that unit, trying to keep the best and brightest away from Pfizer. Breaches of confidentiality happen for slightly different reasons than the other cases. Usually, breaches of confidentiality occur because some- one has multiple loyalties and tries to improve his standing in one of his groups. Other times, different incentives may be presented, including material goods, advanced placement or posi- tion, or a promise of favors in the future.
Of course, a researcher is allowed to change his job, leaving one company for example, Pfizer to go work for a competitor for example, GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]. In such cases, Pfizer would certainly have grounds to make formal complaint. When this occurs, if there was indeed a breach of confidentiality and not just a commonly investigated good idea, major litigation may follow.
This can especially occur if the person com- mitting the breach signed some sort of contract forbidding the transfer of intellectual property. Communications such as e-mail may be subpoenaed and examined to prove a breach of confidentiality has happened. What is inappropriate, however, is if you present your conclusion as the assessment of the original authors. It would also be appropriate for you to compare your conclusion to the one presented by the original authors, providing the appropriate context. Such a misrepresentation is clearly scientific misconduct, especially if the inhibitor you are comparing it to, one that you made, is 84 percent effec- tive against strain A and inactive against strain B.
Although both of the hypothetical cases above achieve the same ends, the second case does so more obviously. Usually, this is exceedingly difficult to catch, if it is possible at all. In each of the cases, the consequences can be as bad or worse than an ethical violation, though in the latter situation there are legal safeguards intended to avoid this. Bad ethics vs. Before wrapping up this chapter, this issue ought to be touched upon.
For this, an imaginary pair of sce- narios is instructive. Scenario 1 Frankie is an assistant professor at a major university. He is in his fourth year, and he is beginning to panic about tenure. His lab has developed a method of adding a selenium nucleophile to alkyl halides, resulting in the displacement of the halide by the selenium nucleophile. All the prin- ciples of organic chemistry suggest that if this reaction works well for alkyl halides, it ought to work even better for benzylic or allylic halides. However, when the work on these latter compounds is done in his lab, the reaction fails.
An investigation into this is under way. Scenario 2 Vladomir is a third-year graduate student at a major university. To have any shot at the American Chemical Society ACS fellowship he plans to apply for, he needs at least one more publication to be in preparation or in print. He develops a method for adding selenium nucleophiles to alkyl halides.
Overrun with excitement, Vlad convinces his advisor to publish, and they publish the work they have with the intent of explor- ing the benzylic and allylic halides next. Such studies will begin shortly. Information was known by Frankie that directly conflicted with his conclusion, and he intentionally withheld it from his publication. This falls into the category of deliberate omis- sion of known data that does not agree with results and is an example of gross ethical misconduct.
This can surely be a defense of why no violation has occurred. Frankie can easily claim that they are indeed investigating why this did not work and that they were not convinced they had optimized the conditions yet—indeed, a plausible defense. Unfortunately, they knew they were misrepresenting the data. In Scenario 2, we have assumed that the investigation into the ben- zylic and allylic really is under way. Without this assumption, Vlad and his mentor are behaving unethically. With this assumption, it should be equally clear that it is simply bad science. Perhaps the case can be made that it is poor peer review in both cases, but that is a different discussion altogether and is covered in Chapter 3.
In Scenario 2, Vladomir made a pretty safe assumption and generalization. Bluntly put, it is not unethical to do something stupid! Based on his data and his previous experiences, Vlad had every reason to draw the line that he did. Let us be clear on the distinction between these two cases. What Frankie did was wrong, but what Vladomir thought was wrong. If in every case of new science we are not allowed to take for granted that certain previous trends will hold, then, really, what good is there in keeping track of anything? Making certain assumptions can be dangerous, but it is not unethical.
In some cases, it comes back to burn you, but at the end of the day, assumptions are not unethical and being wrong is certainly not either. If we are not allowed to do that, work cannot progress. And finally, if Vlad being wrong really makes him unethical, at least he will have company— Who among us has never been wrong? Something should also be said about the selective interpretation of data as well, as it is as much bad science as it is bad ethics. An example of this is a relatively recent report that, over a lifetime, healthy indi- viduals had a higher lifetime health expenditure than obese people or smokers.
However, the study appears to fail to consider issues like the quality of life for the individuals and also appears to overlook the fact that healthier individuals inevitably contribute more positive things to society by way of missing less time at work and working for a longer number of years. Unfortunately, such selective interpretations can result when issues such as health care become politicized and cor- rupted to meet the needs of the organization behind the study. The reason why such selective interpretation can be considered both bad science and bad ethics is that science must be above such taint.
Science is supposed to be completely objective; when preconceived notions soil the interpretation, we are not following good science. Also, when we allow others to forcibly change our mind to suit their agenda or when we deliberately only do such experiments that prove us right and not evaluate the validity of the claim, we are employing bad ethics in addi- tion to bad science.
Genuine mistakes can be made in interpretation of data as well. Also, things are redefined. Twenty years ago, science said Pluto was a planet; today, science says it is not. No bad science, no bad ethics, just scientific progress. Alternatively, there may be an unidentified decomposition or other influencing factors that cause a researcher to not really be observ- ing what he thinks he is observing. An example where yields have been improved is in the development of what we now call Grignard reagents from the Barbier coupling reaction.
In short, initial results the Barbier coupling reaction involved mixing all the reagents together at once. The yields of these reactions were later shown by Grignard to dramatically improve if the organometallic reagent specifically Mg is prepared inde- pendently first. This is simply the natural pro- gression of science. One researcher takes the preliminary work done by another, adds his or her own new insights, and this leads to the advance- ment of science. In other cases, financial obstacles are overcome and this leads to the production of more sensitive optics that, for example, allow astrono- mers to peer further into the universe than ever before.
Does this mean that Galileo was a bad or unethical scientist for not creating these optics and using them on his first telescope? Nobody in his or her right mind would say yes. Similar cases can be mentioned ad nauseam—anything from medical technologies to the lightbulb. All are examples of the best of science. Natural products oftentimes have enor- mous and complex chemical structures. Elucidating their full chemical structure is a monumental task that will certainly contain errors from time to time, even by the best researchers.
Ultimately, these specific errors are often discovered when someone tries to synthesize the molecule and she finds that the synthetic sample is not identical in spectroscopic or physical properties to the authentic sample. If she is then able to alter the synthesis to furnish a different chemical entity often only a small change, such as the direction in which a particular atom or group of atoms is pointing, is necessary and this new chemical entity has identical spectroscopic and physical properties to the authentic sample, she has now corrected the ini- tial structure assignment.
It leaves everything in the hands of the people who know best—the experts. Of course, in cases of unfounded accusations, this is the appropriate response. In other cases, however, the whistle-blower is fired or blackballed by the field. It should be made clear that peer reviewers do not usually see these repercussions. Occasionally, a researcher trying to reproduce the results may see some repercussions, although this is rare. These harsh repercus- sions are usually felt by those whistle-blowers with whom the violator worked. This is a most unfortunate artifact of human nature, and it con- tributes to unchecked scientific misconduct in all aspects of society.
Three cases and certainly not the only three where the whistle- blower had negative repercussions inflicted upon them are Salvador Castro, at the time a medical electronic engineer at Air Shields Inc. After reporting this flaw to his supervisor produced no changes in the design, Castro threat- ened to file a report with the U. Food and Drug Administration. He was then fired. Castro sued Air Shields for wrongful termination, but the case still has not been resolved, in part because the company has changed hands more than once since firing him and since Pennsylvania employ- ment laws at the time permitted employers to fire an employee without a reason.
- “Ethical ambiguity:” When scientific misconduct isn’t black and white.
- Further information.
- The Child Whisperer: The Ultimate Handbook for Raising Happy, Successful, Cooperative Children.
- China strengthens its campaign against scientific misconduct.
Searching online for updates to this lawsuit bore no fruit. August 24, A report from the Office of Research Integrity ultimately found Imanishi-Kari guilty, carrying a penalty of a ten-year ban from receiving federal grant money. She was also suspended from the faculty at Tufts, where she was employed at the time of the investigation. She was once referred to as incoherent by one of the researchers she brought her concerns to. Suzanne Stratton, who holds a PhD in molecular biology, was at the time of this incident the vice president of research at the Carle Foundation Hospital, a leader in cancer research.
Stratton and the PI on a series of projects, Kendrith M. Rowland Jr. After two years of working at Carle, Stratton cited an outside audit that uncovered major deficiencies in twelve of twenty-nine experi- ments investigated that were overseen by Rowland. When Stratton voiced her concern to hospital administrators, they responded by firing her. Wrapping up By now, you should be noticing a theme in why scientific misconduct occurs.
In just about every case, it is used by the perpetrator to gain an edge 20 H. This, in fact, is why all forms of cheating happen, whether it is a researcher claiming that a yield on a reaction is 89 percent when it is really 13 percent, an athlete using performance-enhancing drugs, or anything in between.
Unfortunately, this is probably just human nature. We are a competitive breed and, in all likelihood, we always will be. With that assumption in mind, the best that we can probably do is improve our ability to catch instances of scientific misconduct and improve our under- standing of what scientific misconduct is so that we can avoid the truly accidental lapses in scientific integrity. Science in some form has been practiced for millennia. Over that time, we have become quite proficient at cleaning up after ourselves, even without legislative help.
In cases where government money was used to fund the research stricken by an ethical violation, the government certainly can and should get involved some- how. However, the international nature of science makes it very difficult for any one government to rule on ethical violations. In fact, no govern- ment should be ruling on ethical violations.
This should always be left to experts. What the governments can and should do, however, is withhold federal funding from those who have been convicted by their peers. Scientific misconduct is also significantly different from bad sci- ence. The difference must be boiled down to acting wrong and being wrong, respectively. What happens to those who violate responsible conduct? The penalties for scientific misconduct vary from instance to instance.
At this point, it would probably be most instructive to discuss exam- ples of real-life cases, starting with a case of plagiarism. In , George Wagner wrote a letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News2 describing an experience he recently had in reading an article from a group of Chinese researchers. Wagner promptly contacted the editor of the journal and the editor requested of the authors that an erratum and apology be written at once. Of course, in Western culture, this is a completely inexcusable offense and furthermore is not tolerated by the science community at large.
This does, however, bring us to an imbalanced set of consequences. Without doubt, there would have been at least some disciplinary action taken against a Western scientist by his institution had he committed this same offense, in addition to the mandate by the editor of the journal. No such penalties were reported here. When fabrication of data is discovered, the penalty is very severe.
The offending researcher may be fired, denied a degree if he or she is. Further, the paper or papers containing the fabricated data would certainly be retracted so that nobody else falls victim to this crime on science, and significant embarrassment befalls the journal, the researchers, and the associated university or company. The case of Woo Suk Hwang demonstrates the fact that not only the researcher but also the field can potentially suffer severe repercussions when fraud occurs. Hwang was found to have fabricated data that con- tributed to two separate papers in Science.
His research involved cloning and human embryonic stem cells. This is noteworthy because this field of research already has shaky at best public support, at least in the United States. Any negative attention and this certainly constitutes negative attention could potentially bring funding and public support to a halt. To date, such repercussions have not happened. For his actions, Hwang nearly did time in prison. Not only was the data faked Hwang admitted as much but claimed he was duped by a colleague , but Hwang was found guilty of fraud as well.
The story, however, indirectly continues. Protocols established in South Korea in response to this debacle were employed in to help root out another case of fraud by Tae Kook Kim and colleagues who fabri- cated data during their investigation of a screening technology that would allow them to identify drug targets. The investigators found that data had been both fabricated and misrepresented by the authors of the two Science papers.
This demonstrates how far reaching, even indirectly, the reper- cussions of scientific misconduct can be. If the new protocols had not been in place, Kim and co-workers would have been able to get away with their fraud for a longer time. This, naturally, would have caused greater harm to science. A short aside is important here. That both of these incidents involved the journal Science is not a condemnation of the quality of this journal.
Science remains one of the top two or three journals in the realm of schol- arly scientific publications. As a result, publication in this outstanding journal remains one of the highest, if not the highest, prize in scientific research. Not only is work retracted for scientific misconduct but also for reasons of good science as well. Recently, the editors-in-chief for the journals Infection and Immunity and mBio published a report described in Biotechniques. These four journals are four of the top five journals, with respect to impact fac- tor, with Lancet being the fifth.
The authors, while lauding the correc- tive nature of science, go on to point out several of the consequences of retracted articles, especially for scientific misconduct reasons that are also discussed in this book:. They also point out that the damage that even the relatively small number of retractions can do is disproportionate to the relatively low number of retractions that occur.
The editors of Chemistry of Materials wrote a letter to Chemical and Engineering News in to describe an incident that they had. Specifically, a paper in Chemistry of Materials was found to be essentially a duplicate of a paper in another journal. No specific details were provided by the editors in their letter but they described their decision to take fairly and deservedly severe action and not only withdrew the paper in ques- tion from their Web edition but also posed a one- to three-year ban on publishing in the journal on the authors.
The editors go on in their letter to mention that other penalties that they would consider levying on perpe- trators of scientific misconduct to include notifying their reviewers and the editors of previous journals a manuscript was found to be submitted to. Recently a paper by former Duke associate professor Anil Potti in Blood was retracted after irreproducible results were found. Feng and A.
Casadevall, doi Pun, Biotechniques. December 21, Potti, H. Bild, D. Dressman, J. Lewis, and T. Ortel, Blood, , , —. Bialeck, Biotechniques. During an Institute of Medicine hearing, the Duke vice chancellor for clinical research, Rob Califf, testi- fied that the university was nearly done with its investigation. Califf anticipated that of the forty papers co-authored by Potti during his ten- ure at Duke, more than half will be either fully retracted or partially retracted, a staggering number of retractions to say the least.
Prior to the Blood retraction, four other Potti papers had already been retract- ed. Potti resigned from Duke amid the investigation while on paid administrative leave and currently holds a position at the Coastal Cancer Center in South Carolina. It is not only academic institutions but also governmental research institutions that suffer from scientific misconduct.
Starting in late , the National Institutes of Health NIH were involved in a congressio- nal investigation into conflicts of interest committed by institute scien- tists. By the end of the cooperative investigation by the NIH and a House committee, forty-four scientists were identified as having violated NIH policies or rules governing conflicts of interest. Of these, thirty- six were referred for administrative action, eight were no longer NIH employees by the end of the investigation, and nine were referred to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General for further investigation.
Additionally, the NIH identified twenty-two further cases that the House Committee had not and initiated an inves- tigation of those scientists. An interruption is appropriate here. All of the individuals involved deserve high praise for working together har- moniously and efficiently. The main violation that occurred was that scientists were failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The transgression of these misbe- having relative few the NIH employs thousands of scientists brought severe repercussions down on everyone.
The new rules born from the investigation can be summarized as follows: 6 H. Bonnefoi et al. Hsu et al. Dressman, A. Bild, R. Riedel, G. Chang, R. Sayer, J. Cragun, H Cottrill, M. Kelley, R. Petersen, D. Harpole, J. Marks, A. Berchuck, G. Ginsburg, P. Febbo, J. Lancaster, and J. Nevins, Nature Medicine, , 4, ; A. Potti, S. Mukherjee, R. Petersen, H. Bild, J. Koontz, R. Kratzke, M. Watson, M. Kelley, G. Ginsburg, M. West, D. Harpole Jr. Nevins, New England Journal of Medicine, , , — NIH employees are barred from participating in paid or unpaid activities with pharmaceutical or biotech companies, health care providers, health insurers, trade and professional organizations, and higher education or research institutions that hold or are applying for agency grants.
Senior level employees of the NIH are prohibited from holding any stock in the above-mentioned sectors.
Ethics in Science: Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research | NHBS Academic & Professional Books
Repercussions probably unintended ones were felt immediately. For example, James F. Battel, at the time director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, understandably felt compelled to retire since significant family investment would have to be divested, bringing about a significant tax burden to maintain compliance with Rule 3 above.
Also, a survey revealed that approximately 40 percent of tenure or tenure-track scientists were or had considered searching for a job outside NIH because of the new regulations. This would have been a fairly significant penalty considering that most people felt a crime had not taken place. This, however, is the importance of trust in science. If trust is violated, especially when federal dollars are influenced, the penalty must be severe to protect the trust. Another case involves a very modern form of data manipulation. The Journal of Biological Chemistry has detected fraud in digitally altered pho- tos.
Most people would immediately agree that the third of these offenses is indeed an instance of scientific misconduct. The first two, however, might not be so obvious to an inexperienced researcher. Consequently, a discussion of why these two are examples of scientific misconduct is appropriate here.
First, neglecting to specifically note that a control image is being reused in a series of stud- ies, even within the same paper, leaves out an important piece of data that puts the results into context. While it can certainly be argued that it may 7 www. If the omission influences the interpretation of the data, it is most likely an ethical violation rather than bad science. It might also be argued that it is logical to reuse the same figure throughout a single publication. This is a good argument, but since the matter can be resolved with the addition of a single sentence, it is better to just be clear and tell this to your readers.
The second case is potentially even more confusing. The offense was said to be that the figures from one paper were being used in another for new purposes. This is a very important distinction and it is this that makes this action scientific misconduct. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, in response to these issues, has adopted the same policy as the Journal of Cell Biology:. No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed or intro- duced. The groupings of images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields or exposures must be made explicit by the arrange- ment of the figure e.
Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Nonlinear adjustments e. Here, we are considering the reuse of a result in image form. As will be seen when this case is discussed later, the researcher in question was then relieved of this restriction—not because of what was considered by some to be full absolution of wrongdoing, but because of inappropriate actions on the part of the investigators.
The fact remains, however, that fabrication of data is dealt with extremely severely. To ban a researcher from a family of grants is to effectively blackball him from the scientific community, as without grant funding, there is quite literally no way for a researcher to perform science. It is certainly compa- rable to a career death sentence.
The court of public opinion and the penalties it imposes are also tre- mendously powerful. For example, in early , Carl Djerassi wrote a letter to Chemical and Engineering News objecting to a lack of thorough cred- iting by Trost and Dong of early Bryostatin work. Such issues can cause divisions in the science community. The Royal Society of Chemistry reserves the right to expel violators of responsible conduct of research from their society.
In instances where publication in a particular journal, application to a particular grant, atten- dance at meetings, or admission into professional networks is at least in part influenced by membership in a particular society, this can be a par- ticularly stringent but still appropriate penalty. Other consequences are perhaps better explained using hypothetical situations. For example, imagine that you are visiting graduate schools that you have been accepted to and are trying to decide which to attend.
After asking him why, he informs you that he left because of a dispute in authorship of a paper—he felt that he did enough work to be a co-author on the paper but one of his junior lab mates argued against his inclusion and the advisor decided not to include the third-year student as a co-author on the paper based upon the discussion with the junior lab mate. This would quite nat- urally give you cause for concern. It would not be unreasonable for you to rethink whether you would be best served joining this research group. This is yet another reason that one must be very careful when deciding 9 C.
Djerassi, Chemical and Engineering News, January 26, Being very demanding on this important issue may discourage otherwise excellent people in this case, you! Breaches of confidentiality could come along with extremely severe penalties. He was accused of sending confidential information about insecticides to collab- orators while authoring a legitimate review article in Huang cur- rently awaits trial but another scientist, Liu Wen, also of Dow Chemical, was found guilty of conspiring to steal company secrets. In particular, graduate students or other laboratory associates feel the aftermath of scientific misconduct when the principle investigator PI is found to have committed scientific miscon- duct.
This finding was actually made by the students working in her lab. After Goodwin resigned amid the controversy, only two of the seven researchers both of them students working in her lab at the time were able to find other positions within the department at UW. The other four students and research specialist chose to depart UW, with one completely changing careers to enter into law school instead. Part of his contention was that the misconduct involved at least two federal grant applications, a renewal and an appli- cation for new funding. Mellon went on to point out that the university must show the federal government that it is serious about the honesty of the scientists employed at UW.
Curiously, there has been no question of the integrity of the data Goodwin had published in various manuscripts. Average rating 4. Rating details. All Languages. More filters. Sort order. Michael rated it really liked it Jul 23, Mikayla Heston rated it it was amazing Nov 30, Zach added it Aug 29, Abdul-rahman Miftah marked it as to-read Apr 05, S marked it as to-read Jul 25, Harry Mahardika is currently reading it Jan 01, Cristina added it Jul 27, There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
About John D'Angelo. John D'Angelo. Gideon Koren to pollute the scientific record". The Star. The Guardian. Guardian News And Media Limited. International Journal of Surgery. University World News Singapor Press Holdings Ltd. Advance Media New York. The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Birmingham News. Krishna Murthy". Online Post. National Institutes of Health. Wall Street Journal. Scientific American. CBS Interactive Inc. Epigenetic regulation of Wnt-signaling pathway in acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Promoter hypermethylation of cancer-related genes: a strong independent prognostic factor in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Archived from the original on 30 March Bibcode : PNAS Annals of Internal Medicine. The Scotsman. Johnston Publishing Ltd. Blackford Lexington Herald-Leader. Federal Register. Prolonged apnea and the sudden infant death syndrome: clinical and laboratory observations".see url
Research Integrity and Ethics
The death of innocents. New York: Bantam Books. New York Times. Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system. The system is based on journals inviting independent experts to critique submitted manuscripts. The stated aim is to weed out sloppy and bad research, ensuring the integrity of what it has published. Chicago Tribune. Marc J. Straus, a cancer researcher barred from May 21, Retrieved August 22, Retrieved August 20, Japan's universities take action".
It's all academic". American Chemical Society. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. News nature. The Japan Times Online. The Japan Times Ltd. General Medical Council. Archived from the original PDF on 9 August Retrieved 10 August The Lancet.
Archived from the original on July 29, Archived from the original on May 23, Archived from the original on September 10, Archived from the original on April 24, University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Related Ethics in Science: Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved