2002: Bell Laboratories Scientific Fraud 131
Lerner, E., Fraud shows peer-review flaws. The Industrial Scientist, 2002, 8, 12. http://www.aip.org/
Lucent Technologies, The Exciting World of Bell Labs. Murray Hill, NJ: Lucent Technologies,
2004. http://www.bell-labs.com/history.
Lucent Technologies, Report on the investigation committee on the possibility of scientific
misconduct in the work of Hendrik Schon and coauthors. Murray Hill, NJ: Lucent
Technologies, 2002. http://www.lucent.com/news_events/pdf/researchreview.pdf.
Lucky, R., Leadership and life in the old Bell Labs. IEEE Sig Proc Mag, May, 2004, 21, 6–8.
National Nanotechnology Initiative, Research and Development FY 2002. Washington, DC:
NNI, 2002. http://www.nano.gov/2002budget.html.
Office of Science and Technology Policy, U.S. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct.
Washington, DC: OSTP, 2003. http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html.
Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington,
DC: OSTP, 2004. http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2004/OSTP%20NNI%201-pager%
Ross, P., 5 commandments. IEEE Spectrum, 2003, 40, 30–35.
Service, R., Relaunching Bell Labs. Science, 1996, 272, 638–639.
Service, R., Pioneering physics papers under suspicion for data manipulation. Science, 2002a, 296,
Service, R.,Winning streak brought awe, and then doubt. Science, 2002b, 297, 34–37.
Tseng, G., and Ellenbogen, J.,Towards nanocomputers. Science, 2001, 294, 1293–1294.
Young, S., and Berman, D., Lucent settlement unveiled by SEC: 10 face civil suits. WSJ, A3, May
18, 2004.
1. Is a supervisor responsible for his direct report’s work?
2. What is the threshold for naming someone who works on a project as a
co-author? Is a co-author responsible for the main author’s work?
3. If Schon’s fraudulent papers had all been submitted for publication
after 2003, could he be prosecuted under the new Sarbanes-Oxley Act
(see Chapter 2)?
4. Read the following opinion article describing the peer review
process, which was written by veteran researcher Howard Birnbaum:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-55/iss-3/p49.html. It is titled A Personal
Reflection on University Research Funding. How can the fairness of
peer review funding be ensured?
5. Manuscript reviewers may be biased toward prestigious groups and
accepted ideas. One suggested reform to minimize bias is blind review;
that is, removing the authors’ names from articles sent to reviewers.
Another suggested reform is open review; that is, reviewer identification
in reviews seen by the authors. What are the pros and cons of blind
review and open review?
Ch10-P088531.qxd 2/22/06 11:47 AM Page 131
Prelims-P088531.qxd 3/1/06 3:09 PM Page i
This Page is Intentionally Left Blank

Get Engineering Ethics now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience live online training, plus books, videos, and digital content from nearly 200 publishers.