PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8373494

Integrity versus misconduct: learning the difference between right and wrong.

I A Pritchard
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article compares the concepts of scientific misconduct and scientific integrity as a basis for policy guidance, focusing on their relevance for educating scientists. It argues for preferring the concept of integrity, on the grounds that integrity promises positive guidance regarding good conduct in science, while misconduct only identifies prohibited behavior. Integrity provides better guidance for deliberating about what good conduct is in particular circumstances, and it draws upon a motivational source for encouraging good conduct that misconduct ignores. The article also discusses the inherent limitations of appealing to academic freedom as the grounds for protecting scientific practice from unwarranted intrusions. Finally, it explores the educational implications of how professional ethics in science might be conceived in terms of the idea of integrity, including both the merits and the challenges of such an approach.

Explore related subjects

Academic Medical CentersBiomedical ResearchEthicsHumansMoral DevelopmentResearchScientific MisconductUnited StatesVirtuesBioethics and Professional EthicsBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I A Pritchard. 1993. Integrity versus misconduct: learning the difference between right and wrong.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199309000-00037

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

Impact of same-day screening mammography availability: results of a controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a prospective controlled clinical trial in an urban academic general medicine practice to test the effect of same-day mammography availability on adherence to physicians' screening mammography recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants were a consecutive sample of 920 female patients aged 50 years or older who had received a physician's recommendation for screening mammography at an office visit and had no active breast symptoms, history of breast cancer, or a mammogram within the previous 12 months. Women were assigned to same-day screening mammography availability (intervention group) or usual screening mammography scheduling (control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three-, 6-, and 12-month rates of adherence to physicians' recommendations for screening mammography. RESULT: Twenty-six percent of women in the intervention group obtained a same-day screening mammogram. At 3 months, 58% of the women in the intervention group underwent the recommended screening mammography compared with 43% of the women in the control group (P<.001), increasing to 61% and 49% at 6 months (P<.001), and 268 (66%) of 408 vs 287 (56%) of 512 at 12 months (P = .003). The difference between the intervention and control groups 3-month adherence rates was most marked among women aged 65 years or older (58% vs 34%; P<.001), women who were not employed (54% vs 36%; P<.001), and women with a history of having had either no mammograms (39% vs 20%; P = .02) or only 1 to 2 mammograms (57% vs 38%; P<.001) within the last 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Same-day mammography availability increased 3-, 6-, and 12-month screening mammography adherence rates in this urban academic general medicine practice. The effect was most marked among women aged 65 years or older, women who were not employed, and those who had had fewer than 3 mammograms in the last 5 years. The efficacy of this intervention in other settings still needs to be demonstrated.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed1999

The impact of hospitalists on medical education and the academic health system.

Hospitalism as a career option is likely to reinforce the emphasis of traditional medical residency programs on inpatient care; may become an alternative area of emphasis in many subspecialty fellowship programs; and may even generate its own specific types of advanced training and certification. In the academic setting, subspecialists and their trainees are concerned that hospitalists may request fewer consultations, which could adversely affect subspecialists and the education of both fellows and residents. However, the focus and expertise of hospitalists is likely to improve inpatient education for students and residents and is appealing because it has the potential to improve the quality of inpatient care. Perhaps the major effect of the hospitalist movement on academic centers will be the creation of a cadre of physicians committed to critical pathways; clinical guidelines; quality assurance; risk management; clinical re-engineering; and the use of the inpatient service as a laboratory for developing, evaluating, and implementing initiatives to improve patient care. Although any fundamental change in the organization of clinical services brings with it the risk that essential components of the current system will be jeopardized, the hospitalist movement may have great benefits if it can develop safeguards to ensure seamless patient care and the appropriate use of subspecialty expertise.

Academic Medical Centers↗