title: The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct.
abstract: The Office of Research Integrity found in 2011 that Vipul Bhrigu, a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague's research materials, was guilty of misconduct. However, I argue that this judgment is ill-considered and sets a problematic precedent for future cases. I first discuss the current federal definition of research misconduct and representative cases of research misconduct. Then, because this case recalls a debate from the 1990s over what the definition of "research misconduct" ought to be, I briefly recapitulate that history and reconsider the Bhrigu case in light of that history and in comparison to other cases involving tampering. Finally, I consider what the aim of a definition of research misconduct ought to be, and argue that the precedent set by the reasoning in this case is problematic.
authors.affiliation: Department of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Charlotte 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC, 28223, USA, lrasmuss@uncc.edu.
authors.forename: Lisa M
authors.initials: LM
authors.lastname: Rasmussen
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics*; D035082:Federal Government; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D012108:Research Personnel / Q000941:ethics*; D015871:Scientific Misconduct; D014481:United States; D018172:United States Office of Research Integrity