Introduction: An Oblique Perspective on Research Misconduct

Research misconduct (fabricating, falsifying or plagiarising research, also known as FFP), has become an object of concern, not only for scientists and scholars, but also for managers, funders and publishers of research (Fanelli 2009; European Science Foundation 2010; Drenth 2010; Horbach and Halffman 2016). FFP and other “questionable research practices” (QRP) are discussed in various types of discourse, such as reports, guidelines and codes of conduct, but also in a plethora of scholarly publications, ranging from empirical studies (often from a sociology of science or scientometrics perspective) via normative and/or conceptual analyses (often from a science ethics or philosophy of science perspective) up to editorials. This monograph proposes to study research misconduct from a somewhat different, oblique perspective, namely by analysing research misconduct novels, i.e. novels about contemporary research practices, focussing on FFP, but against the backdrop of a more extended research integrity landscape. Such novels, I will argue, help us to understand, but also to open-up and broaden the issues involved. They often entail a multidimensional approach, focussing on individual experiences, but sensitive to the wider systemic context, allowing us to study research misconduct from multiple viewpoints and to see the current wave of scientific misconduct deliberations as symptomatic for fundamental transformations in the ways in which knowledge is currently produced and valued. As Lex Bouter (former Rector and now professor of methodology and integrity at the Free University of Amsterdam) phrases it, “Scientists are exposed to temptations and … it would make a wonderful theme for an exciting movie or a compelling book. The novel is perhaps the best form for investigating the essence of what scientists do, and why they do it” (Bouter 2015, p. 148).

[1]  H. Kochiras ‘Freud Said – or Simon Says? Informed consent and the advancement of psychoanalysis as a science’ , 2006, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[2]  S. Ross Scientist: The Story of a Word , 1962 .

[3]  B. Fink Lacan to the letter : reading Écrits closely , 2004 .

[4]  R. Triendl,et al.  South Korean policy failure and the Hwang debacle , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[5]  C. Kirchhoff Sigmund Freud: Die Traumdeutung, Franz Deuticke: Leipzig/Wien 1899/1900, 386 S. (zit. n. Gesammelte Werke Bd. II/III) , 2016 .

[6]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[8]  H. Zwart Challenges of Macro-ethics: Bioethics and the Transformation of Knowledge Production , 2008 .

[9]  A. Cooper,et al.  Freud: A Life for Our Time , 2006 .

[10]  James K Hammitt,et al.  Madison and Climate Change Policy , 2006, Science.

[11]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  The transformation of university-industry-government relations. , 2001 .

[12]  S. Freud Die Endliche und die unendliche Analyse , 1937 .

[13]  H. Zwart Limitless as a neuro-pharmaceutical experiment and as a Daseinsanalyse: on the use of fiction in preparatory debates on cognitive enhancement , 2014, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[14]  H. Zwart The donor organ as an ‘object a’: a Lacanian perspective on organ donation and transplantation medicine , 2014, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[15]  H. Zwart Tainted texts: plagiarism and self-exploitation in Solar and Perlmann’s Silence , 2016 .

[16]  J. Lacan Le triomphe de la religion : précédé de discours aux catholiques , 2005 .

[17]  R. Huxtable,et al.  The Voices and Rooms of European Bioethics , 2015 .

[18]  Sung Keun Kang,et al.  Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst , 2004, Science.

[19]  H. Zwart From playfulness and self-centredness via grand expectations to normalisation: a psychoanalytical rereading of the history of molecular genetics , 2013, Medicine, health care, and philosophy.

[20]  G. Freytag Die Technik des Dramas , .

[21]  Jennifer Rohn More lab in the library , 2010, Nature.

[22]  H. Zwart Understanding nature : case studies in comparative epistemology , 2008 .

[23]  Donald Kennedy,et al.  Editorial Retraction (I) , 2003, Science.

[24]  S. Freud Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens , 2018 .

[25]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[26]  L. Bouter Commentary: Perverse Incentives or Rotten Apples? , 2015, Accountability in research.

[27]  S. P. J. M. Horbach,et al.  Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of ‘Scientific Integrity’ , 2016, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[28]  P. Lemmens,et al.  Continental philosophical perspectives on life sciences and emerging technologies , 2016, Life sciences, society and policy.

[29]  D. Fanelli How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data , 2009, PloS one.

[30]  Sigmund Freud,et al.  Jenseits des Lustprinzips , 2015 .

[31]  Sydney Ross B.Sc. Scientist: The story of a word , 2006 .

[32]  P. Berg,et al.  Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. , 1974, Science.