Editing Whistleblowing (section)

=== Private versus public sectors ===

==== Private-sector whistleblowing ====
[[Private sector|Private-sector]] whistleblowing is arguably more prevalent and suppressed in society today.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = The Rise of the Whistleblower and the Death of Privacy Impact of 9/11 and Enron|last = Castagnera|first = James|date =Spring 2003|journal = Labor Law Journal}}</ref> An example of private sector whistleblowing is when an employee reports to someone in a higher position such as a manager or to external factors, such as their lawyer or the police. Whistleblowing in the private sector is typically not high-profile or openly discussed in major news outlets, though occasionally, third parties expose human rights violations and exploitation of workers.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Where am I wearing?|last = Timmerman|first = Kelsey|publisher = California: Wiley|year = 2012}}</ref>

Many governments attempt to protect such whistleblowers. In the United States, for example, there are organizations such as the [[United States Department of Labor]] (DOL) and laws such as the [[Sarbanes–Oxley Act|Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] and the [[United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines]] for Organizations (FSGO) that protect whistleblowers in the private sector. Thus, despite government efforts to help regulate the private sector, the employees must still weigh their options. They either expose the company and stand the moral and ethical high ground; or expose the company, lose their job, their reputation and potentially the ability to be employed again. According to a study at the [[University of Pennsylvania]], out of three hundred whistleblowers studied, sixty-nine percent had foregone that exact situation and were either fired or forced to retire after taking the ethical high ground. It is outcomes like these that make it all that much harder to accurately track the prevalence of whistleblowing in the private sector.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Case 10th Edition|publisher=O.C. Ferrell, John Fraedich, Linda Ferrell|year=2014|isbn=978-1285423715|pages=193|via=Cengage Learning}}</ref>

==== Public sector whistleblowing ====
[[File:Praha, Magistrát, konference, Libor Michálek.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|Czech whistleblower [[Libor Michálek]] was fired from his position after exposing high-level corruption.]]

Public sector whistleblowing is connected to the concept of [[public service motivation]], where a public servant's [[Altruism|altruistic]] alignment to the people or communities they service overrides their adherence to their employer's rules.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Latan |first1=Hengky |last2=Chiappetta Jabbour |first2=Charbel Jose |last3=Ali |first3=Murad |last4=Lopes de Sousa Jabbour |first4=Ana Beatriz |last5=Vo-Thanh |first5=Tan |date=2023 |title=What Makes You a Whistleblower? A Multi-Country Field Study on the Determinants of the Intention to Report Wrongdoing |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=183 |issue=3 |pages=885–905 |doi=10.1007/s10551-022-05089-y |issn=0167-4544 |pmc=8949648 |pmid=35350831}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Euipyo |last2=Lewis-Liu |first2=Tinganxu |last3=Khurana |first3=Shaun |last4=Lu |first4=Ming |date=2023-08-24 |title=A systematic review of the link between public service motivation and ethical outcomes |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23276665.2023.2247101 |journal=Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration |pages=1–28 |doi=10.1080/23276665.2023.2247101 |issn=2327-6665}}</ref> This connection has been demonstrated by research in many different countries, including Poland,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Prysmakova |first1=Palina |last2=Evans |first2=Michelle D. |date=March 2022 |title=Whistleblowing Motivation and Gender: Vignette-Based Study in a Local Government |journal=Review of Public Personnel Administration |volume=42 |issue=1 |pages=165–190 |doi=10.1177/0734371X20967982 |s2cid=228842548 |issn=0734-371X}}</ref> Thailand<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Potipiroon |first=Wisanupong |date=June 2024 |title=Reward Expectancy and External Whistleblowing: Testing the Moderating Roles of Public Service Motivation, Seriousness of Wrongdoing, and Whistleblower Protection |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00910260231222814 |journal=Public Personnel Management |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=309–345 |doi=10.1177/00910260231222814 |issn=0091-0260}}</ref> and the United States of America.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Caillier |first=James Gerard |date=October 2017 |title=Public Service Motivation and Decisions to Report Wrongdoing in U.S. Federal Agencies: Is This Relationship Mediated by the Seriousness of the Wrongdoing |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0275074015626299 |journal=The American Review of Public Administration |volume=47 |issue=7 |pages=810–825 |doi=10.1177/0275074015626299 |issn=0275-0740}}</ref>

Recognition of the value of public sector whistleblowing has been growing over the last 50 years. Many jurisdictions have passed legislation to protect public service whistleblowing in part as a way to address unethical behaviour and corruption within public service agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Whistleblower Laws Around the World |url=https://www.whistleblowers.org/whistleblower-laws-around-the-world/ |access-date=2024-09-28 |website=National Whistleblower Center }}</ref>

In the United States, for example, both state and [[Federal statute]]s have been put in place to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. The [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled that public sector whistleblowers are protected from retaliation by their [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] rights.<ref name="Lehman-2005">{{cite book |last1=Lehman |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Phelps |first2=Shirelle |title=West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 10 |date=2005 |publisher=Thomson/Gale |location=Detroit |isbn=9780787663773 |page=355 |edition=2}}</ref> After many federal whistleblowers were covered in high-profile media cases, laws were finally introduced to protect government whistleblowers. These laws were enacted to help prevent corruption and encourage people to expose misconduct, illegal, or dishonest activity for the good of society.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1177/009102601104000405 |title = Whistleblower Retaliation in the Public Sector|journal = Public Personnel Management|volume = 40|issue = 4|pages = 341–348|year = 2011|last1 = Lee|first1 = Katie|last2 = Kleiner|first2 = Brian|s2cid = 153833481}}</ref> People who choose to act as whistleblowers often suffer [[retaliation]] from their employer. They most likely are fired because they are an [[at-will employee]], which means they can be fired without a reason. There are exceptions in place for whistleblowers who are at-will employees. Even without a statute, numerous decisions encourage and protect whistleblowing on grounds of public policy. Statutes state that an employer shall not take any adverse employment actions against any employee in retaliation for a good-faith report of a whistleblowing action or cooperating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit arising under said action.<ref name="Lehman-2005" /> Federal whistleblower legislation includes a statute protecting all government employees. In the federal civil service, the government is prohibited from taking, or threatening to take, any personnel action against an employee because the employee disclosed information that they reasonably believed showed a violation of law, gross mismanagement, and gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to [[public safety]] or health. To prevail on a claim, a federal employee must show that a protected disclosure was made, that the accused official knew of the disclosure, that retaliation resulted, and that there was a genuine connection between the retaliation and the employee's action.<ref name="Lehman-2005" />

====Whistleblowing in the scientific community====

Research fraud involves data, processes, or observations that were never there to begin with or later added on to fit a claim or narrative. A case involving the scientific community engaging in research fraudulence is that of [[Cyril Burt|Dr. Cyril Burt]]. Dr Cyril Burt was a British psychologist who proposed that he had discovered a [[heritable]] factor for intelligence based on studying twins.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Samelson |first=Franz |date=1997-03-01 |title=What to do about fraud charges in science; or, will the Burt affair ever end? |url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018302319394 |journal=Genetica |volume=99 |issue=2 |pages=145–151 |doi=10.1023/A:1018302319394 |s2cid=263402190 |issn=1573-6857}}</ref> [[Oliver Gillie|Dr. Oliver Gillie]], a former colleague of Dr. Burt, inquired about Dr. Burt’s work, doubting the authenticity of the data and the certain twins on that Dr. Burt was basing his research. Dr. Gillies's inquiry revealed that there were discrepancies to Dr. Burt’s work with inconsistencies in the twin's birth dates  particularly with the absence of records for twins to participate in the study, the falsification of data, and the “invention of crucial facts to support his controversial theory that intelligence is largely inherited.” <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gillie |first=Oliver |date=1977 |title=Did Sir Cyril Burt Fake His Research on Heritability of Intelligence? Part I |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20298643 |journal=The Phi Delta Kappan |volume=58 |issue=6 |pages=469–471 |jstor=20298643 |issn=0031-7217}}</ref>  This led to the eventual retraction of Dr. Burt’s work.

[[Data manipulation]] is the changing or omitting of data or outcomes in such a way that the research is not accurately portrayed in the research record. [[Hwang Woo-Suk|Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk]], a South Korean [[stem cell]] researcher gained international recognition for his groundbreaking work on cloning and stem cell research. Dr. Hwang had a claim to successfully clone human embryos and derived patient-specific stem cell lines, forwarding the field of regenerative medicine which was published in the [[Science (journal)|''Journal of Science''.]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hwang |first1=Woo Suk |last2=Roh |first2=Sung Il |last3=Lee |first3=Byeong Chun |last4=Kang |first4=Sung Keun |last5=Kwon |first5=Dae Kee |last6=Kim |first6=Sue |last7=Kim |first7=Sun Jong |last8=Park |first8=Sun Woo |last9=Kwon |first9=Hee Sun |last10=Lee |first10=Chang Kyu |last11=Lee |first11=Jung Bok |last12=Kim |first12=Jin Mee |last13=Ahn |first13=Curie |last14=Paek |first14=Sun Ha |last15=Chang |first15=Sang Sik |date=2005-06-17 |title=Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts |journal=Science |volume=308 |issue=5729 |pages=1777–1783 |doi=10.1126/science.1112286 |pmid=15905366 |bibcode=2005Sci...308.1777H |s2cid=86634281 |issn=0036-8075|doi-access=free }}{{Retracted|doi=10.1126/science.1124926|pmid=16410485|http://retractionwatch.com/?s=woo+suk+hwang ''Retraction Watch''|intentional=yes}}</ref> Dr. Kim Seon-Jung expressed his concerns regarding the accuracy of the research data and the ethical conduct of the experiments. Independent committees, as well as journalists, scrutinized the research data and methodology leading to an eventual retraction of his work.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=van der Heyden |first1=M. A. G. |last2=van de Derks Ven |first2=T. |last3=Opthof |first3=T. |date=2009-01-01 |title=Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03086211 |journal=Netherlands Heart Journal |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=25–29 |doi=10.1007/BF03086211 |issn=1876-6250 |pmc=2626656 |pmid=19148335}}</ref>

Ethical violations can fall under the following: altering or making up new data to meet a specific goal, adjusting how data is shown or explained, looking at data in a biased manner, and leaving out parts about data analysis and conclusions. [[Paolo Macchiarini|Dr. Paolo Macchiarini]] is well-known within the scientific community as a thoracic surgeon and former regenerative researcher. Dr Macchiarini claimed to have made profound advancements in [[trachea]] transplantation by using synthetic tracheal scaffolds planted with the patient’s own stem cells. The goal was that the stem cells would eventually provide the patient with a suitable replacement trachea.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Ethical perspectives and ramifications of the Paolo Macchiarini case |url=http://ijme.in/articles/ethical-perspectives-and-ramifications-of-the-paolo-macchiarini-case/?galley=html |access-date=2023-10-31 |journal=Indian Journal of Medical Ethics | date=2017 |doi=10.20529/ijme.2017.048 | last1=Da Silva | first1=Jaime A Teixeira | volume=2 | issue=4 | pages=270–275 | pmid=28343147 | s2cid=35776559 }}</ref> Dr. Karl-Henrik Grinnemo, a member of Dr. Machiarini’s research team, raised concerns about the accuracy of the reported results and the ethical conduct of the experiments. Dr. Macchiarini’s ethical violations include exaggeration of success, failure to disclose the adverse post-operational effects, and complications of the surgery. Patients experienced severe health problems; several died post-surgery.<ref>{{Cite web |last=hovrätt |first=Svea |date=2023-06-21 |title=Svea Court of Appeal passes its judgment in a case regarding three acts of gross assault at Karolinska Hospital in Huddinge and Solna between 2011 and 2012 |url=https://www.domstol.se/svea-hovratt/nyheter/2023/06/svea-court-of-appeal-passes-its-judgment-in-a-case-regarding-three-acts-of-gross-assault-at-karolinska-hospital-in-huddinge-and-solna-between-2011-and-2012/ |access-date=2023-10-31 |website=Svea hovrätt |language=sv}}</ref> The acts of Dr. Macchiarini led to the retractions of research articles from the [[The Lancet|Lancet]], the termination of his academic positions, and [[Criminal inquiry|criminal inquiries]] in Sweden. It also sparked concerns over the supervision and control of clinical trials utilizing experimental techniques.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}