Neutrality of science: ethical issues in obtaining results

Neutralidad científica: aspectos éticos en la obtención de resultados;
Neutralidade científica: aspectos éticos na obtenção de resultados

dc.creatorDuarte da Costa Aznar, Fabio
dc.creatorRodrigues de Freitas, Adriana
dc.creatorMaurício Capelari, Marcos
dc.creatorDuarte da Costa Aznar, Fabiano
dc.creatorde Carvalho Sales-Peres, Silvia Helena
dc.creatorSales-Peres, Arsenio
dc.date2017-05-22
dc.date2023-03-22T19:06:05Z
dc.date2023-03-22T19:06:05Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-06T17:54:01Z
dc.date.available2023-09-06T17:54:01Z
dc.identifierhttps://revistas.unimilitar.edu.co/index.php/rlbi/article/view/1899
dc.identifier10.18359/rlbi.1899
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10654/43346
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/8693361
dc.descriptionNeutrality about the scientific community and publication of results are essential since all applied theory in different fields of knowledge is generated by scientific research. The manipulation or falsification of results is one of the most reprehensible practices, as it disseminates false or incorrect data. This study evaluated whether scientific production and the achievement of results were based on ethics and the principle of neutrality, through an integrative literature review. The results showed that 100% of the analyzed studies had scientific misconduct and that it has significantly increased worldwide getting difficult to identify. The most common reasons for data falsification were the quest for recognition and competition in the academic community. Therefore, a responsible conduct and ethical of societies, scientific committees, and journal editors become essential in the credibility of the results found in scientific research.
dc.descriptionLa neutralidad en relación con la comunidad científica y publicación de resultados es esencial, en vista de que toda teoría aplicada en las diversas áreas del conocimiento es generada por investigaciones científicas. La manipulación o falsificación de resultados es una de las  prácticas más condenables, ya que difunde datos falsos o incorrectos. Este estudio evaluó si la producción científica y la obtención de resultados estuvieron pautadas en la ética y en el principio de neutralidad, a través de una revisión integradora de la literatura. Los resultados demostraron que en el 100 % de los trabajos seleccionados existe mala conducta científica, y que esta ha aumentado significativamente en todo el mundo, siendo difícil su identificación. Los motivos más comunes para la falsificación de datos fueron la búsqueda de reconocimiento y la competencia en el medio académico. Por lo tanto, una conducta responsable y ética de sociedades y comités científicos, y editores de periódicos se torna imprescindible en la credibilidad de los resultados encontrados en las investigaciones científicas.
dc.descriptionA neutralidade em relação à comunidade científica e publicação de resultados são essenciais, visto que toda teoria aplicada nas diversas áreas do conhecimento é gerada por pesquisas científicas. A manipulação ou falsificação de resultados é uma das práticas mais condenáveis, pois dissemina dados falsos ou incorretos. Este estudo avaliou se a produção científica e a obtenção de resultados estiveram pautadas na ética e no princípio da neutralidade, por meio de uma revisão integrativa da literatura. Os resultados demonstraram que 100% dos trabalhos selecionados afirmam existir má conduta científica, e que a mesma tem aumentando significantemente em todo o mundo; sendo difícil sua identificação. Os motivos mais comuns para a falsificação de dados foram a busca do reconhecimento e a competição no meio acadêmico. Portanto, uma conduta responsável e ética de sociedades e comitês científicos, e editores de periódicos, torna-se imprescindível na credibilidade dos resultados encontrados nas pesquisas científicas.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.languagepor
dc.publisherUniversidad Militar Nueva Granada
dc.relationhttps://revistas.unimilitar.edu.co/index.php/rlbi/article/view/1899/2499
dc.relation/*ref*/Albuquerque, U. P. (2011). Scientific Misconduct. WebmedCentral Bioethics, 2(2), WMC001617, 1-5.
dc.relation/*ref*/Altman, L. e Broad, W. J. (2005). Global trend: more science, more fraud. The New York Times, (20), F1,F6.
dc.relation/*ref*/Anderson, M. S., Ronning E. A., De Vries, R. e Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5
dc.relation/*ref*/Araújo, L.Z. (2003). Ethical aspects of scientific research. Pesquisa Odontológica Brasileira, 17(Suppl 1), 57-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-74912003000500009
dc.relation/*ref*/Baerlocher, M.O., O'Brien, J., Newton, M., Gautam, T. e Noble, J. (2010). Data integrity, reliability and fraud in medical research. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 21(1), 5-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2009.11.002
dc.relation/*ref*/Basu, P. (2006). Focus on fraud. Where are they now? Nature Medicine, 12(5), 492-493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0506-492b
dc.relation/*ref*/Beisiegel U. (2010). Research integrity and publication ethics. Atherosclerosis, 212(2), 383-385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2010.01.050
dc.relation/*ref*/Brasil, Conselho Nacional de Saúde (1993). “Resolução n. 1/88 de 13 de julho de 1988”. Normas de Pesquisa em Saúde, Brasília.
dc.relation/*ref*/Brasil, Conselho Nacional de Saúde (1996). “Resolução n. 196, de 10 de outubro de 1996”, Brasília. CNS. Disponível em http://dtr2004.saude.gov.br/susdeaz/legislacao/arquivo/Resolucao_196_de_10_10_1996.pdf.
dc.relation/*ref*/Brasil, Conselho Nacional de Saúde (2012). “Resolução n. 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012”. Brasília. CNS. Disponível em http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2012/Reso466.pdf.
dc.relation/*ref*/Cehreli, M., Cehreli, Z., Stamm, T., Meyer, U. e Wiesmann, H.P. (2007). Trick or treat? Head and Face Medicine, 3(1), 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-3-22
dc.relation/*ref*/Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Plos One, 4(5), e5738, 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
dc.relation/*ref*/Fang, F.C., Steen, R.G. e Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028-17033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
dc.relation/*ref*/Farthing, M. J. (2014). Research misconduct: a grand global challenge for the 21st Century. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 29(3), 422-427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.12500
dc.relation/*ref*/Foo, J. Y. e Wilson, S. J. (2012). An Analysis on the Research Ethics Cases Managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Between 1997 and 2010. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(4), 621-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9273-3
dc.relation/*ref*/Forattini, O.P. (1994). Conduta na ciência. Revista de Saúde Pública, 28(4), 247-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89101994000400002
dc.relation/*ref*/Grieger, M.C. (2007). Ghostwriters and commerce of scientific papers on the internet: science at risk. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, 53(3), 247-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-42302007000300023
dc.relation/*ref*/Gupta, A. (2013). Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: A concern. Perspectiven in Clinical Research, 4(2), 144-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.111800
dc.relation/*ref*/Harby, K. (1988).Congress explores the incidence of scientific fraud and misconduct. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 29(9), 1469-1471.
dc.relation/*ref*/Hofmann, B. (2007). That’s not science! The role of moral philosophy in the science/non-science divide. Theoretical Medicine of Bioethics, 28(3), 243-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-007-9035-z
dc.relation/*ref*/Kakuk, P. (2009). The legacy of the Hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 545-562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9121-x
dc.relation/*ref*/Lohsiriwat V. y Lohsiriwat S. (2007). Fraud and deceit in published medical research. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 90(10), 2238-2243.
dc.relation/*ref*/Manzanet, J.E.A. (2009). A propósito de las malas conductas en la publicación científica. Revista Cubana de Medicina General integral, 25(2), 1-2.
dc.relation/*ref*/Marcovitch, H. (2007). Misconduct by researchers and authors. Gaceta Sanitaria, 21(6), 492-499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1157/13112245
dc.relation/*ref*/Maurer, J.J. (2007). The proper conduct of research. Avian Diseases, 51(1), 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/1933-5334(2007)2[e1:TPCOR]2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1637/0005-2086(2007)051[0001:TPCOR]2.0.CO;2
dc.relation/*ref*/McDonald, J.C. (2006). The dark side of scientific research. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 118(3), 231-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncl054
dc.relation/*ref*/Meguid, M.M. (1999). Editors’ responsibility in defeating fraud. Nature, 399(6731), 13-13. DOi: https://doi.org/10.1038/19841
dc.relation/*ref*/Miziara, I. D. (2010). Ética nas publicações científicas: o problema de duplo copyright. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 76(5), 543-543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942010000500001
dc.relation/*ref*/Muccioli, C. (2004). O Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP) e as publicações científicas. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, 67(2), 195-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27492004000200002
dc.relation/*ref*/Palacios, M. e Ramírez, J.H. (2008). La obligación del editor en relación con el fraude científico. Columbia Médica, 39(1), 5-6.
dc.relation/*ref*/Parrish, D. e Noonan, B. (2009). Image manipulation as research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(2), 161-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9108-z
dc.relation/*ref*/Peh, W.C. e Ng, K.H. (2010). Publication ethics and scientific misconduct. Singapore Medocal Journal, 51(12), 908-912.
dc.relation/*ref*/Qazi, Y. (2006). Fabrication: crime in research. Lancet, 367(9511), 649-649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68260-3
dc.relation/*ref*/Reyes, H.B. (2007). Honestidad y buena Fe: dos pilares en la ética de las publicaciones biomédicas. Revista Médica de Chile, (135), 415-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/s0034-98872007000400001
dc.relation/*ref*/Rittner, H.L., Kranke, P., Schäfer, M., Roewer, N. e Brack, A. (2009). What can we learn from the Scott Reuben case? Scientific misconduct in anaesthesiology. Anaesthesist, 58(12), 1199-1209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-009-1637-6
dc.relation/*ref*/Schnaider, T.B. (2008). Ética e pesquisa. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, 23(1), 107-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-86502008000100017
dc.relation/*ref*/Sharma, O.P. (2015). Ethics in Science. Indian Journal of Microbiology, 55(3), 341-344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-015-0532-x
dc.relation/*ref*/Slesser, A.A. e Qureshi, Y.A. (2009). The implications of fraud in medical and scientific research. World Journal Surgery, 33(11), 2355-2359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0201-5
dc.relation/*ref*/Souza, M.T., Silva, M.D. e Carvalho, R. (2010). Revisão integrativa: o que é e como fazer. Einstein, 8(1), 102-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1679-45082010rw1134
dc.relation/*ref*/World Association of Medical Editors (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. Disponível em http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/5474
dc.relation/*ref*/World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki. Disponível em http://www.wma.net/en/20activities/10ethics/10helsinki/DoH-Oct2013-JAMA.pdf
dc.rightsDerechos de autor 2017 Revista Latinoamericana de Bioética
dc.sourceRevista Latinoamericana de Bioética; Vol. 17 Núm. 33-2 (2017): Bioética de la salud pública; 31-41
dc.source2462-859X
dc.source1657-4702
dc.subjectScientific misconduct
dc.subjectethics research
dc.subjectsocial responsibility
dc.subjectMala conducta científica
dc.subjectética en investigación
dc.subjectresponsabilidad social
dc.subjectMá conduta científica
dc.subjectética em pesquisa
dc.subjectresponsabilidade social
dc.titleNeutrality of science: ethical issues in obtaining results
dc.titleNeutralidad científica: aspectos éticos en la obtención de resultados
dc.titleNeutralidade científica: aspectos éticos na obtenção de resultados
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución