Letter 2 - Conduct Meeting

The Scientist, July 25, 1994, page 1) says that "many of the attendees [at the 'Convocation on Scientific Conduct'] note with some dismay that active research scientists were largely absent from among the approximately 250 people [in the audience]." Did they really think that many would come? Displaying an interest in misconduct is not a path to advancement in science. Remember what happened to Walter Stewart and Ned Feder. Only sci

Charles Mccutchen
Oct 16, 1994
The article entitled "Meeting On Science Conduct Seen As A Noble Attempt That Fell Short" by Franklin Hoke (The Scientist, July 25, 1994, page 1) says that "many of the attendees [at the 'Convocation on Scientific Conduct'] note with some dismay that active research scientists were largely absent from among the approximately 250 people [in the audience]." Did they really think that many would come?

Displaying an interest in misconduct is not a path to advancement in science. Remember what happened to Walter Stewart and Ned Feder. Only scientists who have already sacrificed their careers would dare to come, and why should they swell the audience for this latest show put on by the biomedical science establishment to give an appearance of action?

If the establishment ever decides to do anything real to halt scientific misconduct, it will use the same subterranean methods it now employs in the...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?