Recognizing and Avoiding Plagiarism These two sentences were plagiarised: Biomedical researchers incorporate strict rules of science into their work, which is examined by peers. Yet the resulting information can be warped for five reasons: ending a study too soon, not publishing negative results, publishing results too early, skimming over or ignoring drawbacks, and buffing the results by showing them in the best light (Crossen, 1994, pp. 166167).
These two sentences could be paraphrased as follows: Peer reviewed journals report results of scientific research by biomedical researchers. The information in these research reports may be biased by pharmaceutical companies who want to show only some of the results. While they do not compromise public safety, if the research was paid for by a grant from a pharmaceutical company, the researcher is obligated to use the grantors funds in the manner he wants them used.
It is the grantees obligation to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. Any thing extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the study is not reported. Negative results or unsuccessful trials might be omitted or not reported. Not using a large enough sample to fully test the drug is ending the study too soon. Ignoring less successful trials or spurious results satisfies the drug company and probably does not jeopardize public safety. Naturally, the pharmaceutical company stakeholder expects the drug and drug company portrayed in the best possible positive light. Quoting directly from the text, the two sentences would say: Biomedical research incorporates rigorous scientific rules and is often critically scrutinized by peers (Crossen, 1994, p.
The Essay on Drug Companies and Ethics
After researching pharmaceutical companies, I quickly realized this is a very controversial topic. I’m not certain anyone in many of these companies have very many moral standards. Drug companies seemed to be very profitable from the researchers to the drug reps that deliver “gifts” and sample meds to the doctor’s offices that push their medications. Many activists will argue that drug companies ...
166).
The information can nevertheless be warpedby ending a study because the results are disappointing; changing rulesto the protocol or analytic toolsmid-study; not trying to publish negative results; publicizing preliminary results even with final and less positive results in hand; skimming over or even not acknowledging drawbacks; and, especially, casting the results in the best light or, as scientists say, buffing them (Crossen, 1994, p 167)..
