Consequences to Co Authors for Scientific Fraud Final Essay

Question Description

I don’t understand this Social Science question and need help to study.

Topic: scientific fraud

See attachment for detailed instruction (MUST read carefully!)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Final Essay Guidance: Topic: scientific fraud The final essay for this course should meet these requirements: 1) The essay should make a normative argument about some aspect of the course material. This means the essay needs to be about something discussed in the course, AND the essay needs to be arguing for how things should be or how things should get addressed for the topic. See advice below for how to do this. 2) The essay should be between 750 and 1000 words long (not including sources). 3) The essay should provide a word count for the many body of the text (not including sources). 4) The essay should list some (at least one!) reliable source(s) in a bibliography at the end. You can use the readings assigned for class, and/or other sources. 5) The essay should use MLA style. 6) For ease of reading, please use a 12 point serif font, such as Times New Roman. Upon final submission, your essay will be checked for plagiarism through Turnitin Originality Check. To avoid inadvertent plagiarism, be sure when taking notes that you place any quotes inside of quotation marks with citation, so that you do not forget the words are quotes from a source. Types of normative claims for which an essay can argue include: 1) This is what scientists should have done in cases like this (that they did not do). 2) This is the policy we should have to help with cases like this. 3) This is how we should think about and evaluate cases like this. 4) This is what we should do in this case or with this information. 5) This is how we should address a problem discussed in the course. There are many ways in which to craft an argument for a normative claim. You can start with the details of a particular case and build to a general claim about how a problem in that case should have been addressed. You can start with a general problem, discuss details of an example, and draw general conclusions about how to address that problem. You can start with a claim about how a problem should be addressed and support that claim with reasons and details from particular cases. The key thing is that the essay argue for a normative claim and give reasons for why that is the correct way to view things, reasons that are well grounded in accurate empirical claims (the details) and in normative principles on which there is wide agreement. Examples of normative principles you might use include: 1) Human beings have a right to autonomous decision-making about their body. 2) Animals should not be treated cruelly or have unnecessary suffering inflicted upon them. 3) The harms inflicted in a study should be outweighed by the benefits. 4) The risks of a study should not all fall on the most vulnerable while the benefits accrue to the well-off. 5) Scientists should not commit fraud or fabricate evidence. 6) Scientists should be good colleagues to each other. 7) Scientists should promote ways to be constructively critical of each other’s work (e.g. by promoting diversity). 8) Publicly funded science should serve the public interest. (This is coming in Part III.) 9) Scientists should do work that serves humanity. (See -- this will also be addressed in Part III.) In addition, provide reasons for why the principle applies in your case and other relevant reasons to support your normative claim. Be as persuasive as you can! Think of it as an essay that would make a good blog post or online article on your topic. Essays will be evaluated on the basis of: 1) Organization (is the flow of thoughts orderly and not repetitive) 2) Clarity of writing (do you use good grammar and word choice) 3) Accuracy and depth of statements (do you accurately and sufficiently describe the information central to your case) 4) Strength of argument (do you support your normative claim well and do you forestall obvious objections) 5) Presence of clear normative claim for which you are arguing (is it clear as to what the essay is trying to persuade the reader) 6) Meeting the requirements above (word length, sources, word count, font, etc.) ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer


Scientific Fraud Outline
Thesis statement: Scientific fraud has significant consequences such as loss of interest in the
career for co-authors and responsible colleagues, and peer-review systems should be used to
ensure the merit of scientific research.

Consequences to Co-authors for Scientific Fraud
Consequences of Scientific Fraud in the Health Industry
Regulatory tools to address scientific fraud



Institution Affiliation
Scientific Fraud
Scientific fraud refers to the violation of scientific ethics in the publication of professional
research through the falsification of data or plagiarism, among others. Scientists involved in
scientific misconduct suffer significant consequences such as loss of interest in the field. Coauthors linked to fraud also risk their career and advancement in their publication since their peers
avoid further collaboration. This implies that scientists should consider their colleagues and ensure
their information is accurate and based on actual data-generated results. Fraud in the biomedical
field, for instance, causes significant risks to patients’ lives and also leads to loss of public trust
with the health sector. Peer reviews should...

agneta (51329)

Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

It’s my second time using SP and the work has been great back to back :) The one and only resource on the Interwebs for the work that needs to be done!

Thanks, good work

Similar Questions
Related Tags