Scientific research has provided knowledge and understanding that has freed humankind from the ignorance that once promoted fear, mysticism, superstition, and illness

Bibliography
1.Cassidy, M. M. and A. E. Shamoo. 1989. “First international conference on scientific data audit, policies and quality assurance.” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 1(1):1-3.
2.Cole, S., L. Rubin, and J. R. Cole. 1977. “Peer review and the support of science.” Scientific American 237(4):34-41.
3.Frankel, M. S. 1989. “Professional codes: why, how, and with what impact?” Journal of Business Ethics 8:109-15.
4.Holton, G. 1988. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein . Revised edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
5.Kuyper, B. J. 1991. “Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research.” Bioscience (April):248-50.
6.Pigman, Ward and Emmett B. Carmichael. 1950. “An ethical code for scientists.” Science (June 16):643-647.
7.Rennie, D. 1989. “Editors and auditors.” Journal of the American Medical Association 261(May 5):2543-45. [With letters.]
8.Zuckerman, H. 1968. “Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers: a study of social symbolism and its ambiguity.” American Journal of Sociology 74(November 3):276-291.

1^  See, for example, Kuyper (1991).

2^ See, for example, the proposal by Pigman and Carmichael (1950).

3^ See, for example, Holton (1988) and Ravetz (1971).

4^ The discussion in this section is derived from Mark Frankel's background paper, “Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct,” included in Volume II of this report.

5^ For a broader discussion on this point, see Zuckerman (1977).

6^For a broader discussion on this point, see Zuckerman (1977).

7^ See, for example, responses to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences action against Friedman: Hamilton (1990) and Abelson et al. (1990). See also the discussion in Bailar et al. (1990).

8^ Much of the discussion in this section is derived from a background paper, “Reflections on the Current State of Data and Reagent Exchange Among Biomedical Researchers,” prepared by Robert Weinberg and included in Volume II of this report.

9^  See, for example, Rennie (1989) and Cassidy and Shamoo (1989).

10^ See, for example, the discussion on random data audits in Institute of Medicine (1989a), pp. 26-27.

11^ For more complete discussions of peer review in the wider context, see, for example, Cole et al. (1977) and Chubin and Hackett (1990).