<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><rec-number>408</rec-number><ref-type>Journal Article</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guenin, Louis M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, Bernard D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific Reasoning and Due Process</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Science and Engineering Ethics</style></secondary-title></titles><taxonomies><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Science </style></taxonomy><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Engineering </style></taxonomy><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Misconduct</style></taxonomy></taxonomies><pubtype><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal Article</style></pubtype><audience-level><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ug</style></audience-level><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1996</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">47-54</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Recent public hearings on misconduct charges belie the conjecture that due process will preface defeat informed scientific reasoning. One notable case that reviewed an obtuse description of experimental methods displays some of the subtleties of differentiating carelessness from intent to deceive. There the decision of a studious nonscientist panel managed to reach sensible conclusions despite conflicting expert testimony. The significance of such a result may be to suggest that to curtail due process would be both objectionable and unproductive.</style></abstract><doi><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.1007/BF02639317</style></doi><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cover Date: January 1996.Source Info: 2(1), 47-54. Language: English. Journal Announcement: 31-1. Subject: ETHICS; MISCONDUCT; REASON; RESEARCH; SCIENCE. Update Code: 20090226.</style></notes></record></records></xml>