In 2017, a researcher from the University of Virginia was found guilty of scientific misconduct when he published several research papers using falsified and/or fabricated data. The researcher had received grant money from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct studies on drug-resistant malaria. However, after an investigation by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) within the Department of Health and Human Services, it was revealed that the researcher had submitted fraudulent results claiming positive findings resulting from experiments that never occurred. In addition to fabricating data, he also excluded certain materials when submitting publications related to this research and failed to acknowledge key individuals who contributed significantly to this work (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 2019). The researcher ultimately agreed to retract two articles published regarding his research and appropriate financial restitution for any grants obtained through fraudulent means as part of a settlement with ORI.
This case highlights how important it is for researchers conducting federally funded projects to adhere strictly to guidelines provided by funding agencies in order to avoid potential issues related to scientific misconduct such as fraud or plagiarism. It also serves as evidence that even experienced researchers can fall prey since mistakes associated with wrongfully obtaining funds are not necessarily limited to novice investigators but can be made at any level regardless of one’s experience or qualifications (National Science Board 2018).
In 2015, a research team in South Korea was found to have fabricated their results in a study investigating the effectiveness of the drug Taheebo on cancer. The team had claimed that the drug could reduce symptoms of pancreatic cancer, but it was later discovered that this was not true and that they had manipulated their data to get better results. It was also revealed that the team had plagiarized parts of their paper from other studies. This misconduct led to serious consequences: the lead researcher involved lost his job, his prestigious academic position at Seoul National University, and several grants he received were returned or suspended. Additionally, several journal articles he published were retracted due to inaccuracies.
legislators would have more motivations to crusade across their entire state, rather than basically battling in their solitary areas as the state vote would decide corresponding seating. Optimistically, Niel Franzese of the Connecticut Regulation Survey brings up “such a circumstance could propel citizens to partake in primaries that they had not in that frame of mind in order to make the most of a recharged opportunity to have their voices heard in another sort of essential political decision,” (Franzese, 274).
Moving to medium term results, ideological groups would turn out to be more divided as differing ideological groups would shape to catch a piece of the democratic portion. Adding to the fracture, parties that were major areas of strength for once start to debilitate, for example, how the Casual get-together has started to remove strength from the Conservative Association. On October 29, 2015, Stephanie Schriock of The Slope, guarantees the Casual get-together has previously been “fixing the legislative guide with safe conservative locale,” getting seats they regularly wouldn’t get an opportunity at winning. This pattern could extend across ideological group limits as “floor crossing” and between party alliances framed to deliver specific political decision results.
At last, the drawn out ramifications of applying Brazilian discretionary approaches to the US could demonstrate terrible. With an all around debilitating party framework, the possibilities of intrigue and pay off will rise dramatically. Moreover, as the US keeps on encountering a wilting working class, there would be cause for more noteworthy social uprisings. Adding into the class structure evaluation, “class structures have become undeniably more energized in cutting edge entrepreneur nations,” (Bastos, 153), and with unlikely portrayal overall, the polarization would keep on declining.
Presently the issue with this speculative situation is only that, it is speculative. The different ramifications that have been expressed lead one down an elusive slant that breeds cynicism and dismisses the chance of a positive result. To the extent that any political specialist can perceive, a relative framework might just be the response to fix the US polarization, taking into consideration better portrayal of regions, for example, the “neglected” moderate Rust Belt, the frank liberal West Coast, and the blended moderate/moderate East Coast. Thus, while examining what is happening, for example, this, it vital to observe that there essentially isn’t sufficient proof to help which type of a majority rules system will be more useful than another. There are many elements that become an integral factor including society, late political and social history, and eagerness to change to give some examples. In help, that’s what niel Franzese considers “an absence of convincing examinations with finding
