Judging the Medics' Science: Misconduct and Research Culture in Disciplinary Proceedings since 1990

“坏科学”是什么意思在英国和国外，科学调查人员和医生越来越受到严格的审查。但是，当这些都是同样的人时，会发生什么：对于从事科学研究的医生来说，“坏科学”意味着什么，同时又戴着公共卫生系统下病人护理人员的专业帽子？在2011年的一份报告中，下议院科学技术委员会将科学行为的治理描述为“不令人满意”。“在国际舞台上，许多组织和委员会越来越多地致力于防止和应对研究不端行为和欺诈行为。这项研究旨在为当前关于这一公众极为关注的问题的政策辩论提供信息，通过提高公众对科学中的信任、专业精神、诚信以及不端行为的理解，这一项目将有助于科学民主化。它还寻求扩大科学研究辩论的范围。它是通过审查一般医学理事会（和密切相关的决策机构）在确保联合王国医学领域的合法研究行为方面的作用来实现这一点的。该项目将跨越二十年，从英国“第一个”广泛宣传的科学欺诈案，涉及产科医生马尔科姆皮尔斯的论文伪造和不当作者归属案，直到安德鲁韦克菲尔德关于MMR疫苗和自闭症之间联系的研究的佐贺，以及其他当前的发展。该项目的目标包括：1。提供1990-2010年期间，对普通医学理事会关于医学研究中科学不端行为的决定的第一次全面分析; 2.更广泛地说，了解在文化背景下，医学科学中的不端行为、道德和诚信是什么。通过对不同案例的仔细阅读、法律的分析和批评，在这个项目中，我将探索科学行为和不端行为的文化方面。这些文化方面包括最近对医学专业自主性的信任的崩溃，以及公众对科学透明度的期望。该项目将提供“思考工具”，让公众以及从业者和其他利益相关者参与科学行为和不端行为的问题。它还将有助于确定研究治理领域的良好和不良做法，并为政策改革提供信息，以更好地解决科学不端行为问题。

What does 'bad science' mean? In the UK and abroad, science investigators and medical doctors are increasingly subject to close scrutiny. But what happens when these are the same people: what does 'bad science' mean for medical doctors who pursue scientific research, and at the same time wear a professional hat as carers for patients under a public health system? In a 2011 report the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons has characterised the governance of scientific conduct as 'unsatisfactory.' On the international scene, many organisations and committees are increasingly working to prevent and respond to research misconduct and fraud. This study will be designed to inform current policy debates on this issue of great public concern.This project will help to democratize science, by enhancing public understandings of trust, professionalism, integrity but also misconduct, in science. It also seeks to broaden the terms of the debates on scientific research. It does so by examining the role of the General Medical Council (and closely related decision-making bodies) in securing legitimate research conduct in the area of UK medicine. The project will span two decades, ranging from the 'first' widely publicised science fraud case in the UK, a case of paper fabrication and improper authorship attribution involving obstetrician Malcolm Pearce, up until the saga of Andrew Wakefield's research on the link between MMR vaccines and autism, and other current developments. The aims of the project include: 1. to offer the first comprehensive analysis of General Medical Council's decisions about scientific misconduct in medical research, for the period 1990-2010, and 2. more broadly speaking, to understand what constitutes misconduct, ethics, and integrity in medical science in their cultural contexts.Through close reading, legal analysis and critique of the different cases, in this project I will thus explore the cultural aspects of scientific conduct and misconduct. These cultural aspects include the recent breakdown of trust in the medical profession's autonomy, and public expectations of transparency in science.The project will provide 'thinking tools' to engage the public as well as practitioners and other stakeholders about issues of scientific conduct and misconduct. It will also enable the identification of good and bad practices in the area of research governance, and inform policy reforms to better tackle the problems of scientific misconduct.