If governments are to define deception as research misconduct, science deserves clarity and rigour in the definition.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
Guenin, L. M. & Davis, B. D. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2, 47–54 (1996).
Guenin, L. M. Acad. Med. 71, 595–603 (1996).
National Academy of Sciences. Responsible Science (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1992
64 Fed. Reg. 55723 (14 Oct. 1999).
Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Letter to William Raub, 15 March 1996.
60 Fed. Reg. 10588 (27 Feb. 1995).
In re Imanishi-Kari, Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Research Integrity Adjudications Panel, Decision No. 1582 (1996).
Guenin, L. M. Science 271, 1790 (1996).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Further commentary on the author's and OSTP's proposals may be found at http://www.hms.harvard.edu/dms/cos/guenin.html
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guenin, L. Expressing a consensus on candour. Nature 402, 577–578 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/45068
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/45068
This article is cited by
-
Intellectual Honesty
Synthese (2005)
-
Apathy rewards misconduct — and everybody suffers
Nature (2000)