The Violation Imperative Part 1: Allegations and Fraud

Abstract

In recent decades, a number of high-profile cases involving fraud as research misconduct have been in the media and resulted in severe consequences for those convicted. According to the increased cases of allegations and coverage in the media, this reflects a heightened awareness that fraudulent actions exist.  Nonetheless, the Office of Research Integrity data suggests that despite the growth in the number of the cases of allegation there has not been a commensurate increase in findings of misconduct. The purpose of this paper is to explore misconduct to better understand what it entails. An analysis of misconduct from the perspective of the definitions of allegations and fraud of is conducted and potential frameworks for understanding both are considered. The paper considers serial-positioning effects of primacy and recency on allegation phenomena, as well as supervenience theory and contextualism as a lens for understanding fraud. Discussion of the relational semantics of the core aspects of fraud and de facto grouping of forms of misconduct.  It is concluded that the interrogative pronouns of “what” and “when” could be used to categorize forms of misconduct laying the foundation for the next paper that deconstructs the definition of falsification according to the Public Health Service.

The Violation Imperative Part II: A Philosophical Critique of the Public Health Service’s Definition of Falsification as Research Misconduct

“…According to Macrina (2014) Ellen's suggestion of cropping the image to eliminate the unexpected findings while leaving only the expected ones, she claims, is better presumably because doing so would avoid having to deliberately alter the picture and the subsequent need to explain. Although the difference is that Ellen's suggestion avoids the need to explain, unfortunately, the similarity is that cropping the image of the linear array of amplified DNA fragments in the gel would be both It may seem pedantic, but, in fact, this one detail concerning inclusion is an example of what I refer to as a relevant dichotomy (Carroll, 2019). A relevant dichotomy may be defined as a significant aspect, quality, or factor the sole presence or absence of which can be used to consistently discern two or more seemingly identical things from one another.…”