Scrape wikipedia-science: 1235 new, 975 updated, 2265 total (kb-cron)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocation_concealment-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocation_concealment"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:43:11.862091+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:43.310319+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:36:29.087160+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:44.532981+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_of_Washington-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "Bird of Washington"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_of_Washington"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:47.008127+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Bird of Washington, Washington Eagle, or Great Sea Eagle (Falco washingtonii, F. washingtoniensis, F. washingtonianus, or Haliaetus washingtoni) was a putative species of sea eagle which was claimed in 1826 and published by John James Audubon in his famous work The Birds of America. It was most notable for its reported wingspan of 10 feet 2 inches. The validity of this species has been questioned since 1870, and the consensus among modern ornithologists is that it was fabricated. Theories about its true nature include the following:
+
+It was an invention and that the picture was plagiarized from a picture of a golden eagle in Rees's Cyclopædia.
+It was a juvenile specimen, aberrant individual, or subspecies of bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
+It was actually a genuine species, but it was rare and became extinct after Audubon's sightings.
+John James Audubon's painting of the bird was acquired by Sidney Dillon Ripley, and his family donated it to the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 1994.
+Other illustrations by Audubon whose provenance is now disputed include western meadowlark, Harris's hawk and the red-winged blackbird.
+
+
+== History ==
+Audubon attributes his first sighting of the bird to the year 1814. He was on a trading voyage along the upper Mississippi River when his patroon pointed out an eagle flying overhead. The patroon describes how the bird was a rare sight, but not unheard of. He described their feeding habits: They usually fished in a manner similar to the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), however when bodies of water had frozen over, they scavenged animal remains that hunters left behind. As the bird flew away, Audubon concluded that it must be a new species.
+His second encounter occurred years later, this time along the Green River in Kentucky, where he observed an amount of excrement left on a high cliff. He concluded that it was from owls nesting on the cliff. A companion of his attributed it to a juvenile Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), but Audubon denied this, stating that Bald Eagles only nested in trees, not cliffs. The companion reported additional differences between Bald Eagles and the bird he had seen, such as hunting and nesting behaviors. Audubon proceeded to wait several hours until seeing the bird itself, where it reportedly fed its young. The larger female of the pair then appeared. Then, the female discovered Audubon and his companions.
+Audubon described several other brief sightings of the bird, but none as detailed as these two. He also reported shooting and handling various specimens.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== Further reading ==
+Audubon, J. J. 1828. "Notes on the Bird of Washington (Fálco Washingtoniàna), or Great American Sea Eagle." Magazine of Natural History 1: pp 115–120.
+Maruna, S. 2006. "Substantiating Audubon's Washington Eagle." Ohio Cardinal 29(3): pp 140–150.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Bik-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "Elisabeth Bik"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Bik"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:45.772187+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Elisabeth Margaretha Harbers-Bik (born 1966) is a Dutch microbiologist and scientific integrity consultant. Bik is known for her work detecting photo manipulation in scientific publications, and identifying over 4,000 potential cases of improper research conduct. Bik is the founder of Microbiome Digest, a blog with daily updates on microbiome research, and the Science Integrity Digest blog.
+Bik was awarded the 2021 John Maddox Prize for "outstanding work exposing widespread threats to research integrity in scientific papers".
+
+== Early life and education ==
+Bik was born in the Netherlands. She studied at the Utrecht University, where she obtained her MSc degree and subsequently a PhD in 1996, both in microbiology. Her dissertation was about developing vaccines for new strains of Vibrio cholerae involved in cholera epidemics across India and Bangladesh. She conducted her doctorate and her postdoctoral studies at the molecular microbiology department in the National Institute of Health and the Environment in Bilthoven.
+
+== Career ==
+
+=== Public sector ===
+After receiving her doctorate, Bik worked for the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and St. Antonius Hospital in Nieuwegein, where she organized the development of new molecular techniques for identifying infectious agents.
+
+=== Academia ===
+In 2001, Bik moved to California to work at Stanford University in the laboratory of David Relman, where her work focused on human microbiomes, previously unidentified microbial species in them, and their diversity across individuals. Her work explored other mucosal microbiomes, confirming that the human oral microbiota contains distinct genera from the gut microbiota.
+While at Stanford, Bik worked on an Office of Naval Research project to study the microbiome of dolphins and sea lions in San Diego. She found that their microbiome was distinct from other mammals, and influenced by the sea they lived in.
+
+=== Private sector ===
+In 2016, Bik left Stanford to work for uBiome, a biotech company involved in the sequencing of human microbiomes, before leaving the company in 2018 to work full-time on analyzing scientific papers for image duplication and other malpractices.
+
+=== Science integrity ===
+
+Bik started to focus on science integrity in 2013, when she discovered that one of her publications had been plagiarised. One evening in January 2014, she found duplicated images with manipulations in papers from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. She decided to dedicate her free time to looking for questionable practices in scientific publications, and specialized in tracking down image manipulation in studies.
+In 2014, she started the blog Microbiome Digest, where she provided easy-to-understand commentaries on recent scientific papers. The blog soon became a success, and Bik enlisted help from her colleagues on Twitter to manage the content. She is also an active contributor to Retraction Watch and PubPeer, highlighting scientific papers that present falsified, duplicated, and questionable data, such as in western blot images.
+Together with Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang, Bik published an mBio paper investigating the prevalence of these questionable practices within published scientific papers, where they found nearly 400 papers with intentional figure manipulation (i.e. about 800 duplicate images). She estimates half of these were created with the intention to mislead. Bik is active on Twitter, where she posts potentially duplicated figures for her more than 114,000 followers (as of November 2021) to investigate. Her investigations have exposed significant levels of scientific misconduct in several journals. In 2018, Bik was featured on the pop science podcast "Everything Hertz."
+In 2019, Bik announced via Twitter that she was taking a year off paid work to investigate scientific misconduct, the subject on which she co-authored a preregistered test suggesting that "academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies", but not pressure to publish, may affect scientific integrity, with nationality being a stronger predictor than individual attributes. Her analysis of 960 recent papers published in Molecular and Cellular Biology found that 59 (6.1%) contained inappropriately duplicated images, from which 5 papers were subsequently retracted and 41 papers had corrections published, and led to a pilot image screening program at the journal identifying problems with 14.5% of subsequent submissions.
+In February 2020, Science reported that Bik had identified over 400 research papers published in China over the previous three years, apparently all originating from the same research paper mill company providing full service production of articles describing fake research for medical students on demand. Bik said, "students in China need to have a paper published to get their MD, but they do not have time to do research, so that is an unrealistic goal."
+In September 2021, Bik discovered repetitive elements in published images that indicated digital tampering by authors of a paper by the controversial Comet Research Group claiming the discovery of the Biblical Sodom, and evidence that it had been destroyed by a cosmic airburst.
+The authors initially denied tampering with the photos but eventually published a correction in which they admitted to inappropriate image manipulation. On February 15, 2023, the following editor's note was posted on this paper, "Readers are alerted that concerns raised about the data presented and the conclusions of this article are being considered by the Editors. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues".
+During a session of the 2022 European Hematology Association Congress, Bik presented information about artificial intelligence being used to fraudulently generate Western blot images.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Bik-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+title: "Elisabeth Bik"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Bik"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:45.772187+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+==== Hydroxychloroquine ====
+In March 2020, commenting on the publication of the results of a clinical trial by Didier Raoult on the effect of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19, she identified a conflict of interest and strongly criticized the methodology of the study. The owners of the journal that had published the results admitted that the publication was not at the level expected by the society, in particular due to a lack of justification of the criteria for patient selection and triage. They then rebutted allegations of a conflict of interest, stating that the peer review process prior to publication had been respected because Jean-Marc Rolain, one of the co-authors of the article and editor of the journal, had not participated in the evaluation. The publisher Elsevier then announced an additional independent evaluation to determine whether the concerns about the article were well founded.
+In May 2021, the French non profit association Citizen4Science, made up of scientists and citizens, published a press release in response to an announcement by Didier Raoult's lawyer that IHU Marseille was suing Bik. Citizen4Science linked a petition denouncing the harassment of scientists and defenders of science integrity, specifically mentioning Bik and calling on French authorities to intervene and journalists to look into the matter.  On May 8, 2021, Lonni Besançon, a French postdoctoral research fellow at Monash University, also wrote an open letter signed by scientists to support Bik. The letter, also mentioned in The Guardian, Science, and Nature, gathered signatures from more than 2,200 scientists and 30 scholarly societies. On May 22, 2021, The Guardian reported that Raoult had begun legal proceedings against Elisabeth Bik. A Science article updated on June 4, 2021, in print issue 6546, stated that more than 3,000 signatories supported the Citizen4Science petition.
+In December 2024, Raoult's hydroxychloroquine trial article was retracted by its journal due to issues with "adherence to Elsevier's publishing ethics policies and the appropriate conduct of research involving human participants, as well as concerns raised by three of the authors themselves regarding the article's methodology and conclusions." Bik commented that the article shouldn't have been published in the first place or at least should have been withdrawn immediately after publication.
+
+== Awards ==
+Bik received the following awards:
+
+November 2020: the Peter Wildy Prize by the Microbiology Society for communication of microbiology in education and to the public.
+2021: the John Maddox Prize for "outstanding work exposing widespread threats to research integrity in scientific papers".
+2021: the Ockham Award for Skeptical Activism by The Skeptic magazine.
+July 2023: the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science commendation award.
+2024: included on the STATUS List by STAT News in recognition of her work as a scientific integrity analyst and her expertise in scientific image analysis.
+November 2024: Einstein Foundation Individual Award for research integrity.
+
+== References ==
+
+== External links ==
+
+Microbiome Digest blog
+Science Integrity Digest blog
+Elisabeth Bik on X 
+Elisabeth Bik publications indexed by Google Scholar

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patome-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: "Patome"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patome"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:35.407997+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Patome is a database of biological sequence data of issued patents and/or published applications.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Patents
+Gene patent
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+https://web.archive.org/web/20101223004907/http://www.patome.org/

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_on_Scientific_Knowledge_and_Public_Policy-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_on_Scientific_Knowledge_and_Public_Policy"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:36.559247+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), based at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C., examines the nature of science and the ways in which it is both used and misused in government decision-making and legal proceedings. Through empirical research, conversations among scholars, and publications, SKAPP aims to enhance understanding of how knowledge is generated and interpreted. SKAPP's mission is to promote transparent decision-making based on the best available science in order to promote public safety and health.
+SKAPP provides information about the impacts of existing legislation and regulation on drug safety, occupational health and safety, and environmental health. It has examined the use of science in regulation of specific hazards, including bisphenol A, beryllium, hexavalent chromium, and the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl.
+Support for SKAPP is provided by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, the Open Society Institute, and the Rockefeller Family Fund. Past support has been provided by the Common Benefit Trust, a fund established pursuant to a court order in the Silicone Gel Breast Implant Products Liability litigation; the Alice Hamilton Fund; and the Bauman Foundation.
+
+
+== Scientific evidence and the law ==
+The Supreme Court of the United States has issued three rulings which greatly impact the role scientists may play in providing expert testimony. These rulings are Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, General Electric v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. Each address the "gatekeeper" role of the judge in determining the admissibility of expert testimony, with considerable implications for tort litigation.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
+Daubert Standard
+Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
+
+
+== External links ==
+SKAPP Website, www.defendingscience.org
+The Pump Handle Blog
+Defending Science in the Courts, from www.defendingscience.org
+Science in Government Decision Making, from www.defendingscience.org
+SKAPP Writing & Speeches, from www.defendingscience.org
+Case Studies, from www.defendingscience.org

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: "Regulation of nanotechnology"
+chunk: 1/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Because of the ongoing controversy on the implications of nanotechnology, there is significant debate concerning whether nanotechnology or nanotechnology-based products merit special government regulation. This mainly relates to when to assess new substances prior to their release into the market, community and environment.
+Nanotechnology refers to an increasing number of commercially available products – from socks and trousers to tennis racquets and cleaning cloths. Such nanotechnologies and their accompanying industries have triggered calls for increased community participation and effective regulatory arrangements. However, these calls have presently not led to such comprehensive regulation to oversee research and the commercial application of nanotechnologies, or any comprehensive labeling for products that contain nanoparticles or are derived from nano-processes.
+Regulatory bodies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. or the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate of the European Commission have started dealing with the potential risks posed by nanoparticles. So far, neither engineered nanoparticles nor the products and materials that contain them are subject to any special regulation regarding production, handling or labelling.
+
+== Managing risks: human and environmental health and safety ==
+
+Studies of the health impact of airborne particles generally shown that for toxic materials, smaller particles are more toxic. This is due in part to the fact that, given the same mass per volume, the dose in terms of particle numbers increases as particle size decreases.
+Based upon available data, it has been argued that current risk assessment methodologies are not suited to the hazards associated with nanoparticles; in particular, existing toxicological and eco-toxicological methods are not up to the task; exposure evaluation (dose) needs to be expressed as quantity of nanoparticles and/or surface area rather than simply mass; equipment for routine detecting and measuring nanoparticles in air, water, or soil is inadequate; and very little is known about the physiological responses to nanoparticles.
+Regulatory bodies in the U.S. as well as in the EU have concluded that nanoparticles form the potential for an entirely new risk and that it is necessary to carry out an extensive analysis of the risk. The challenge for regulators is whether a matrix can be developed which would identify nanoparticles and more complex nanoformulations which are likely to have special toxicological properties or whether it is more reasonable for each particle or formulation to be tested separately.
+The International Council on Nanotechnology maintains a database and Virtual Journal of scientific papers on environmental, health and safety research on nanoparticles. The database currently has over 2000 entries indexed by particle type, exposure pathway and other criteria. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) currently lists 807 products that manufacturers have voluntarily identified that use nanotechnology. No labeling is required by the FDA so that number could be significantly higher. "The use of nanotechnology in consumer products and industrial applications is growing rapidly, with the products listed in the PEN inventory showing just the tip of the iceberg" according to PEN Project Director David Rejesk.
+The Material Safety Data Sheet that must be issued for certain materials often does not differentiate between bulk and nanoscale size of the material in question and even when it does these MSDS are advisory only.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "Regulation of nanotechnology"
+chunk: 2/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Democratic governance ==
+Many argue that government has a responsibility to provide opportunities for the public to be involved in the development of new forms of science and technology. Community engagement can be achieved through various means or mechanisms such as referendums, consultation documents, and advisory committees that include community members and other stakeholders as possible governance structures for nanotechnologies. Other conventional approaches include public meetings and "closed" dialog with stakeholders. More contemporary engagement processes that have been employed to include community members in decisions about nanotechnology include citizens' juries and consensus conferences. Leach and Scoones argue that since that “most debates about science and technology options involve uncertainty, and often ignorance, public debate about regulatory regimes is essential.”
+It has been argued that limited nanotechnology labeling and regulation may exacerbate potential human and environmental health and safety issues associated with nanotechnology, and that the development of comprehensive regulation of nanotechnology will be vital to ensure that the potential risks associated with the research and commercial application of nanotechnology do not overshadow its potential benefits. Regulation may also be required to meet community expectations about responsible development of nanotechnology, as well as ensuring that public interests are included in shaping the development of nanotechnology.
+Community education, engagement and consultation tend to occur "downstream": once there is at least a moderate level of awareness, and often during the process of disseminating and adapting technologies. "Upstream" engagement, by contrast, occurs much earlier in the innovation cycle and involves: "dialogue and debate about future technology options and pathways, bringing the often expert-led approaches to horizon scanning, technology foresight and scenario planning to involve a wider range of perspectives and inputs." Daniel Sarewitz Director of Arizona State University's Consortium on Science, Policy and Outcomes, argues that "by the time new devices reach the stage of commercialization and regulation, it is usually too late to alter them to correct problems." However, Xenos, et al. argue that upstream engagement can be utilized in this area through anticipated discussion with peers. Upstream engagement in this sense is meant to "create the best possible conditions for sound policy making and public judgments based on careful assessment of objective information". Discussion may act as a catalyst for upstream engagement by prompting accountability for individuals to seek and process additional information ("anticipatory elaboration"). However, though anticipated discussion did lead to participants seeking further information, Xenos et al. found that factual information was not primarily sought out; instead, individuals sought out opinion pieces and editorials.
+The stance that the research, development and use of nanotechnology should be subject to control by the public sector, or that favors participatory politics to guide state intervention in the effort to manage the transition to a society revolutionized by molecular nanotechnology, is sometimes referred to as nanosocialism.  The term was coined by USC professor David M. Berube, who argued that nanotechnological projections need to be tempered by technorealism about the implications of nanotechnology in a technocapitalist society, but that its applications also offer enormous opportunities for economic abundance and social progress.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: "Regulation of nanotechnology"
+chunk: 3/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Newness ===
+The question of whether nanotechnology represents something 'new' must be answered to decide how best nanotechnology should be regulated. The Royal Society recommended that the UK government assess chemicals in the form of nanoparticles or nanotubes as new substances. Subsequent to this, in 2007 a coalition of over forty groups called for nanomaterials to be classified as new substances, and regulated as such.
+Despite these recommendations, chemicals comprising nanoparticles that have previously been subject to assessment and regulation may be exempt from regulation, regardless of the potential for different risks and impacts. In contrast, nanomaterials are often recognized as 'new' from the perspective of intellectual property rights (IPRs), and as such are commercially protected via patenting laws.
+There is significant debate about who is responsible for the regulation of nanotechnology. While some non-nanotechnology specific regulatory agencies currently cover some products and processes (to varying degrees) – by "bolting on" nanotechnology to existing regulations – there are clear gaps in these regimes. This enables some nanotechnology applications to figuratively "slip through the cracks" without being covered by any regulations. An example of this has occurred in the US, and involves nanoparticles of titanium dioxide (TiO2) for use in sunscreen where they create a clearer cosmetic appearance. In this case, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed the immediate health effects of exposure to nanoparticles of TiO2 for consumers. However, they did not review its impacts for aquatic ecosystems when the sunscreen rubs off, nor did the EPA, or any other agency. Similarly the Australian equivalent of the FDA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approved the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens (without the requirement for package labelling) after a thorough review of the literature, on the basis that although nanoparticles of TiO2 and zinc oxide (ZnO) in sunscreens do produce free radicals and oxidative DNA damage in vitro, such particles were unlikely to pass the dead outer cells of the stratum corneum of human skin; a finding which some academics have argued seemed not to apply the precautionary principle in relation to prolonged use on children with cut skin, the elderly with thin skin, people with diseased skin or use over flexural creases. Doubts over the TGA's decision were raised with publication of a paper showing that the uncoated anatase form of TiO2 used in some Australian sunscreens caused a photocatalytic reaction that degraded the surface of newly installed prepainted steel roofs in places where they came in contact with the sunscreen coated hands of workmen. Such gaps in regulation are likely to continue alongside the development and commercialization of increasingly complex second and third generation nanotechnologies.
+Nanomedicines are just beginning to enter drug regulatory processes, but within a few decades could comprise a dominant group within the class of innovative pharmaceuticals, the current thinking of government safety and cost-effectiveness regulators appearing to be that these products give rise to few if any nano-specific issues. Some academics (such as Thomas Alured Faunce) have challenged that proposition and suggest that nanomedicines may create unique or heightened policy challenges for government systems of cost-effectiveness as well as safety regulation. There are also significant public good aspects to the regulation of nanotechnology, particularly with regard to ensuring that industry involvement in standard-setting does not become a means of reducing competition and that nanotechnology policy and regulation encourages new models of safe drug discovery and development more systematically targeted at the global burden of disease.
+Self-regulation attempts may well fail, due to the inherent conflict of interest in asking any organization to police itself. If the public becomes aware of this failure, an external, independent organization is often given the duty of policing them, sometimes with highly punitive measures taken against the organization.
+The Food and Drug Administration notes that it only regulates on the basis of voluntary claims made by the product manufacturer. If no claims are made by a manufacturer, then the FDA may be unaware of nanotechnology being employed.
+Yet regulations worldwide still fail to distinguish between materials in their nanoscale and bulk form. This means that nanomaterials remain effectively unregulated; there is no regulatory requirement for nanomaterials to face new health and safety testing or environmental impact assessment prior to their use in commercial products, if these materials have already been approved in bulk form. The health risks of nanomaterials are of particular concern for workers who may face occupational exposure to nanomaterials at higher levels, and on a more routine basis, than the general public.
+
+=== International law ===
+There is no international regulation of nanoproducts or the underlying nanotechnology. Nor are there any internationally agreed definitions or terminology for nanotechnology, no internationally agreed protocols for toxicity testing of nanoparticles, and no standardized protocols for evaluating the environmental impacts of nanoparticles. Moreover, nanomaterials do not fall within the scope of existing international treaties regulating toxic chemicals.
+Since products that are produced using nanotechnologies will likely enter international trade, it is argued that it will be necessary to harmonize nanotechnology standards across national borders. There is concern that some countries, most notably developing countries, will be excluded from international standards negotiations. The Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards notes that “developing countries should have a say in international nanotechnology standards development, even if they lack capacity to enforce the standards". (p. 14).
+Concerns about monopolies and concentrated control and ownership of new nanotechnologies were raised in community workshops in Australia in 2004.
+
+== Arguments against regulation ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+title: "Regulation of nanotechnology"
+chunk: 4/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Wide use of the term nanotechnology in recent years has created the impression that regulatory frameworks are suddenly having to contend with entirely new challenges that they are unequipped to deal with. Many regulatory systems around the world already assess new substances or products for safety on a case by case basis, before they are permitted on the market. These regulatory systems have been assessing the safety of nanometre scale molecular arrangements for many years and many substances comprising nanometre scale particles have been in use for decades e.g. Carbon black, Titanium dioxide, Zinc oxide, Bentonite, Aluminum silicate, Iron oxides, Silicon dioxide, Diatomaceous earth, Kaolin, Talc, Montmorillonite, Magnesium oxide, Copper sulphate.
+These existing approval frameworks almost universally use the best available science to assess safety and do not approve substances or products with an unacceptable risk benefit profile. One proposal is to simply treat particle size as one of the several parameters defining a substance to be approved, rather than creating special rules for all particles of a given size regardless of type. A major argument against special regulation of nanotechnology is that the projected applications with the greatest impact are far in the future, and it is unclear how to regulate technologies whose feasibility is speculative at this point. In the meantime, it has been argued that the immediate applications of nanomaterials raise challenges not much different from those of introducing any other new material, and can be dealt with by minor tweaks to existing regulatory schemes rather than sweeping regulation of entire scientific fields.
+A truly precautionary approach to regulation could severely impede development in the field of nanotechnology safety studies are required for each and every nanoscience application. While the outcome of these studies can form the basis for government and international regulations, a more reasonable approach might be development of a risk matrix that identifies likely culprits.
+
+== Response from governments ==
+
+=== United Kingdom ===
+In its seminal 2004 report Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, the United Kingdom's Royal Society concluded that:
+
+Many nanotechnologies pose no new risks to health and almost all the concerns relate to the potential impacts of deliberately manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes that are free rather than fixed to or within a material... We expect the likelihood of nanoparticles or nanotubes being released from products in which they have been fixed or embedded (such as composites) to be low but have recommended that manufacturers assess this potential exposure risk for the lifecycle of the product and make their findings available to the relevant regulatory bodies... It is very unlikely that new manufactured nanoparticles could be introduced into humans in doses sufficient to cause the health effects that have been associated with [normal air pollution].
+but have recommended that nanomaterials be regulated as new chemicals, that research laboratories and factories treat nanomaterials "as if they were hazardous", that release of nanomaterials into the environment be avoided as far as possible, and that products containing nanomaterials be subject to new safety testing requirements prior to their commercial release.
+The 2004 report by the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineers noted that existing UK regulations did not require additional testing when existing substances were produced in nanoparticulate form. The Royal Society recommended that such regulations were revised so that “chemicals produced in the form of nanoparticles and nanotubes be treated as new chemicals under these regulatory frameworks” (p.xi). They also recommended that existing regulation be modified on a precautionary basis because they expect that “the toxicity of chemicals in the form of free nanoparticles and nanotubes cannot be predicted from their toxicity in a larger form and... in some cases they will be more toxic than the same mass of the same chemical in larger form.”
+The Better Regulation Commission's earlier 2003 report had recommended that the UK Government:
+
+enable, through an informed debate, the public to consider the risks for themselves, and help them to make their own decisions by providing suitable information;
+be open about how it makes decisions, and acknowledge where there are uncertainties;
+communicate with, and involve as far as possible, the public in the decision making process;
+ensure it develops two-way communication channels; and
+take a strong lead over the handling of any risk issues, particularly information provision and policy implementation.
+These recommendations were accepted in principle by the UK Government. Noting that there was “no obvious focus for an informed public debate of the type suggested by the Task Force”, the UK government's response Archived September 29, 2011, at the Wayback Machine was to accept the recommendations.
+The Royal Society's 2004 report identified two distinct governance issues:
+
+the “role and behaviour of institutions” and their ability to “minimise unintended consequences” through adequate regulation and
+the extent to which the public can trust and play a role in determining the trajectories that nanotechnologies may follow as they develop.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-4.md

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+title: "Regulation of nanotechnology"
+chunk: 5/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== United States ===
+Rather than adopt a new nano-specific regulatory framework, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convenes an 'interest group' each quarter with representatives of FDA centers that have responsibility for assessment and regulation of different substances and products. This interest group ensures coordination and communication. A September 2009 FDA document called for identifying sources of nanomaterials, how they move in the environment, the problems they might cause for people, animals and plants, and how these problems could be avoided or mitigated.
+The Bush administration in 2007 decided that no special regulations or labeling of nanoparticles were required. Critics derided this as treating consumers like a "guinea pig" without sufficient notice due to lack of labelling.
+Berkeley, CA is currently the only city in the United States to regulate nanotechnology. Cambridge, MA in 2008 considered enacting a similar law, but the committee it instituted to study the issue Cambridge recommended against regulation in its final report, recommending instead other steps to facilitate information-gathering about potential effects of nanomaterials.
+On December 10, 2008 the U.S. National Research Council released a report calling for more regulation of nanotechnology.
+
+==== California ====
+Assembly Bill (AB) 289 (2006) authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) within the California Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies to request information on environmental and health impacts from chemical manufacturers and importers, including testing techniques.
+
+=== California ===
+In October 2008, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), within the California Environmental Protection Agency, announced its intent to request information regarding analytical test methods, fate and transport in the environment, and other relevant information from manufacturers of carbon nanotubes. DTSC is exercising its authority under the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 699, sections 57018-57020. These sections were added as a result of the adoption of Assembly Bill AB 289 (2006). They are intended to make information on the fate and transport, detection and analysis, and other information on chemicals more available. The law places the responsibility to provide this information to the Department on those who manufacture or import the chemicals.
+On January 22, 2009, a formal information request letter was sent to manufacturers who produce or import carbon nanotubes in California, or who may export carbon nanotubes into the State. This letter constitutes the first formal implementation of the authorities placed into statute by AB 289 and is directed to manufacturers of carbon nanotubes, both industry and academia within the State, and to manufacturers outside California who export carbon nanotubes to California. This request for information must be met by the manufacturers within one year. DTSC is waiting for the upcoming January 22, 2010 deadline for responses to the data call-in.
+The California Nano Industry Network and DTSC hosted a full-day symposium on November 16, 2009 in Sacramento, CA. This symposium provided an opportunity to hear from nanotechnology industry experts and discuss future regulatory considerations in California.
+On December 21, 2010, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) initiated the second Chemical Information Call-in for six nanomaterials: nano cerium oxide, nano silver, nano titanium dioxide, nano zero valent iron, nano zinc oxide, and quantum dots. DTSC sent a formal information request letter to forty manufacturers who produce or import the six nanomaterials in California, or who may export them into the State. The Chemical Information Call-in is meant to identify information gaps of these six nanomaterials and to develop further knowledge of their analytical test methods, fate and transport in the environment, and other relevant information under California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 699, sections 57018-57020. DTSC completed the carbon nanotube information call-in in June 2010.
+DTSC partners with University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Santa Barbara (UCSB), and Riverside (UCR), University of Southern California (USC), Stanford University, Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (CEIN), and The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on safe nanomaterial handling practices.
+DTSC is interested in expanding the Chemical Information Call-in to members of the brominated flame retardants, members of the methyl siloxanes, ocean plastics, nano-clay, and other emerging chemicals.
+
+=== European Union ===
+The European Union has formed a group to study the implications of nanotechnology called the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks which has published a list of risks associated with nanoparticles.
+Consequently, manufacturers and importers of carbon products, including carbon nano-tubes will have to submit full health and safety data within a year or so in order to comply with REACH.
+A number of European member states have called for the creation of either national or European nanomaterials registries. France, Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark have established national registries of nanomaterials. In addition, the European Commission requested the Europeach Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to create a European Union Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON) that aims at collecting publicly available information on the safety and markets of nanomaterials and nanotechnology.
+
+== Response from advocacy groups ==
+In January 2008, a coalition of over 40 civil society groups endorsed a statement of principles calling for precautionary action related to nanotechnology. The coalition called for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products in the International Center for Technology Assessment's report Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nano materials, which states:

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology-5.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: "Regulation of nanotechnology"
+chunk: 6/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nano-materials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. But evidence indicates that current nano-materials may pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. In addition, the profound social, economic, and ethical challenges posed by nano-scale technologies have yet to be addressed ... 'Since there is currently no government oversight and no labeling requirements for nano-products anywhere in the world, no one knows when they are exposed to potential nano-tech risks and no one is monitoring for potential health or environmental harm. That's why we believe oversight action based on our principles is urgent' ... This industrial boom is creating a growing nano-workforce which is predicted to reach two million globally by 2015. 'Even though potential health hazards stemming from exposure have been clearly identified, there are no mandatory workplace measures that require exposures to be assessed, workers to be trained, or control measures to be implemented,' explained Bill Kojola of the AFL-CIO. 'This technology should not be rushed to market until these failings are corrected and workers assured of their safety'" also [1].
+The group has urged action based on eight principles. They are (1) A Precautionary Foundation (2) Mandatory Nano-specific Regulations (3) Health and Safety of the Public and Workers (4) Environmental Protection (5) Transparency (6) Public Participation (7) Inclusion of Broader Impacts and (8) Manufacturer Liability.
+Some NGOs, including Friends of the Earth, are calling for the formation of a separate nanotechnology specific regulatory framework for the regulation of nanotechnology. In Australia, Friends of the Earth propose the establishment of a Nanotechnology Regulatory Coordination Agency, overseen by a Foresight and Technology Assessment Board. The advantage of this arrangement is that it could ensure a centralized body of experts that are able to provide oversight across the range of nano-products and sectors. It is also argued that a centralized regulatory approach would simplify the regulatory environment, thereby supporting industry innovation. A National Nanotechnology Regulator could coordinate existing regulations related to nanotechnology (including intellectual property, civil liberties, product safety, occupation health and safety, environmental and international law). Regulatory mechanisms could vary from "hard law at one extreme through licensing and codes of practice to 'soft' self-regulation and negotiation in order to influence behavior." 
+The formation of national nanotechnology regulatory bodies may also assist in establishing global regulatory frameworks.
+In early 2008, The UK's largest organic certifier, the Soil Association, announced that its organic standard would exclude nanotechnology, recognizing the associated human and environmental health and safety risks. Certified organic standards in Australia exclude engineered nanoparticles. It appears likely that other organic certifiers will also follow suit. The Soil Association was also the first to declare organic standards free from genetic engineering.
+
+== Technical aspects ==
+
+=== Size ===
+Regulation of nanotechnology will require a definition of the size, in which particles and processes are recognized as operating at the nano-scale. The size-defining characteristic of nanotechnology is the subject of significant debate, and varies to include particles and materials in the scale of at least 100 to 300 nanometers (nm). Friends of the Earth Australia recommend defining nano-particles up to 300 nanometers (nm) in size. They argue that "particles up to a few hundred nanometers in size share many of the novel biological behaviors of nano-particles, including novel toxicity risks", and that "nano-materials up to approximately 300 nm in size can be taken up by individual cells". The UK Soil Association Archived April 3, 2011, at the Wayback Machine define nanotechnology to include manufactured nano-particles where the mean particle size is 200 nm or smaller. The U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative defines nanotechnology as “the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nm.
+
+=== Mass thresholds ===
+Regulatory frameworks for chemicals tend to be triggered by mass thresholds. This is certainly the case for the management of toxic chemicals in Australia through the National pollutant inventory. However, in the case of nanotechnology, nano-particle applications are unlikely to exceed these thresholds (tonnes/kilograms) due to the size and weight of nano-particles. As such, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars questions the usefulness of regulating nanotechnologies on the basis of their size/weight alone. They argue, for example, that the toxicity of nano-participles is more related to surface area than weight, and that emerging regulations should also take account of such factors.
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_science-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+title: "Regulation of science"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:38.928956+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The regulation of science refers to use of law, or other ruling, by academic or governmental bodies to allow or restrict science from performing certain practices, or researching certain scientific areas.
+Science could be regulated by legislation if areas are seen as harmful, immoral, or dangerous. For these reasons science regulation may be closely related to religion, culture and society.
+Science regulation is often a bioethical issue related to practices such as abortion and euthanasia, and areas of research such as stem-cell research and cloning synthetic biology.
+
+
+== United States ==
+
+
+=== Biomedical research ===
+Unjust events such as the St. Louis tragedy or the Tuskegee syphilis experiment have prompted regulations in biomedical research. Over the years, regulations have been extended to encompass animal welfare and research misconduct. The federal government also monitors the production and sale of the results of biomedical research such as drugs and biopharmaceuticals. The FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services oversee the implementation of these regulations.
+The Dickey–Wicker Amendment prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed.
+
+
+==== Human subject research ====
+The issue of experimentation on human subjects gained prominence after World War II and the revelation of atrocities committed in the name of science. In the United States, the 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendments to the FDA included for the first time a requirement for informed consent of participants. In 1966, a policy statement by the U.S Surgeon General required that all human subject research go through independent prior review. The National Research Act of 1974 institutionalized this review process by requiring that research centers establish Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).
+Universities, hospitals, and other research institutions set up these IRBs to review all the research done at the institution. These boards, generally composed of both scientific peers from the institution and lay persons, are tasked with assessing the risks and benefits associated with the use of human subjects, in addition to the adequacy of the protection and consent of the participants. The IRBs can approve research proposals, make modifications, or disapprove them entirely. Research projects cannot receive federal funding without approval from an IRB. Noncompliance can also induce sanctions from the institution, such as revoked access to facilities and subjects, suspension, and dismissal.
+The National Research Act of 1974 also set up the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which produced the Belmont Report (Report on Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research) in 1979. This report established a moral framework for the regulation of research involving human subjects.
+
+
+==== Animal welfare ====
+The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 sets standards of treatment of animals in research experiments. It requires all research facilities to register with the USDA and allows officials to conduct unannounced facility inspections. The Health Research Extension Act of 1985 requires that all research facilities using animals establish Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) to evaluate twice a year the institutions' activities involving animals. The IACUCs report to the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare annually.
+
+
+==== Research misconduct ====
+The Health Research Extension Act of 1985 led to the establishment of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) within the Department of Health and Human Services. ORI is responsible for reviewing research misconduct allegations and developing policies to improve the responsible conduct of research.
+
+
+==== Commercialization ====
+Two divisions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are in charge of monitoring the production and sale of drugs. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is responsible for reviewing new drug applications and requires clinical trials as proof of effectiveness. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is responsible for implementing federal regulations of biopharmaceuticals such as vaccines, blood components, gene therapies, etc. They approve new drugs on the basis of safety and effectiveness, and issue licenses, which allow companies to market their products.
+
+
+=== Nuclear energy research ===
+Nuclear energy is historically linked to issues of national security. From 1942 to 1946, nuclear research was controlled by the military, which conducted research in secrecy. In 1946, the Atomic Energy Act handed over control to civilians, although the government retained a tight monopoly over nuclear energy. The 1954 amendment to this act enabled private industry to pursue non-military applications of nuclear research.
+The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 established the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in charge of licensing and safety. The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents raised concerns and public apprehension over the safety of nuclear power. As a result, the NRC strengthened safety regulations for nuclear power plants.
+
+
+=== Teaching ===
+Science education is a controversial subject in the United States. Several states banned the teaching of evolution in the 20th century, most notably the state of Tennessee with the Butler Act of 1925. It was followed by the Scopes Trial, in which the state of Tennessee accused Scopes, a high school teacher, of teaching evolution. Although he was found guilty and fined, the trial showed declining public support for Fundamentalists. The Scopes Trial had an important impact in the larger creation versus evolution debate. In the following decades, the term "evolution" was omitted in many biology textbooks, even when the text discusses it. These bans on teaching evolution were overturned by a Supreme Court ruling in Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968. Since 2001, there has been a resurgence of anti-evolution bills, one of which, the Louisiana Science Education Act, was passed. This Act allows public schools to use supplementary material that is critical of the scientific theories such as evolution and global warming in science classrooms.
+The U.S. government and state legislatures have also enacted regulations promoting science education. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 was passed soon after the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1 and linked education with issues of national security. This law provided funding for scholarships and science programs. In 2013, 26 state governments worked together to produce the Next Generation Science Standards, which sets expectations for K–12 science education.
+
+
+== International regulations ==
+The Nuremberg Code was written as part of the trials of Nazi doctors after World War II. It introduced ten ethical principles regarding human experimentation, the first of which requires informed consent from human subjects. It also states that experimentation on humans must be necessary to society, be preceded by studies on animals, and protect subjects from injury, disability and death. The Nuremberg Code was very influential in shaping regulations of scientific research across the world. For example, the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 was developed by the World Medical Association and establishes ethical principles for the medical community.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Ethics committee
+Intelligent design in politics
+Lysenkoism
+Politicization of science
+Right to science and culture
+Scientific freedom
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific misconduct"
+chunk: 1/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Scientific misconduct is the violation of ethical and professional standards in research, including fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other practices that compromise the integrity of the design, conduct, analysis, reporting, or publication of scientific or research findings.
+
+== Basic definitions and urgency of dealing with misconduct ==
+Various research ethics bodies provide definitions of scientific misconduct. For example, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) defines research misconduct to include (any of) fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.
+A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions, reproduced in The COPE report 1999:
+
+Danish definition: "Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"
+Swedish definition: "Intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."
+Scientific misconduct can harm the credibility of the research record, damage careers, and undermine public trust in science. It may also affect other researchers who rely on falsified or fabricated findings. Additionally, it can harm individuals who expose it.  In addition there are public health implications attached to the promotion of medical or other interventions based on false or fabricated research findings. Scientific misconduct can result in loss of public trust in the integrity of science.
+Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions that report to the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity (ORI) indicate some form of scientific misconduct. However the ORI will only investigate allegations of impropriety where research was funded by federal grants. They routinely monitor such research publications for red flags and their investigation is subject to a statute of limitations. Other private organizations like the Committee of Medical Journal Editors (COJE) can only police their own members.
+A 2025 study from Northwestern University found that "the publication of fraudulent science is outpacing the growth rate of legitimate scientific publications". The study also discovered broad networks of organized scientific fraudsters.
+
+== Forms ==
+The U.S. National Science Foundation defines three types of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.
+
+Fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them.  This is sometimes referred to as "drylabbing". A more minor form of fabrication is where references are included to give arguments the appearance of widespread acceptance, but are actually fake, or do not support the argument.
+Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
+Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. One form is the appropriation of the ideas and results of others, and publishing as to make it appear the author had performed all the work under which the data was obtained. There are recognized subsets of plagiarism:
+Citation plagiarism involves failure to credit relevant prior work and can, in some cases, be considered research misconduct when done intentionally to misrepresent priority or originality. This is also known as, "citation amnesia", the "disregard syndrome" and "bibliographic negligence". Arguably, this is the most common type of scientific misconduct. Sometimes it is difficult to guess whether authors intentionally ignored a highly relevant cite or lacked knowledge of the prior work.  Discovery credit can also be inadvertently reassigned from the original discoverer to a better-known researcher. This is a special case of the Matthew effect.
+Plagiarism-fabrication is the act of mislabeling an unrelated figure from an unrelated publication and reproducing it exactly in a new publication, claiming that it represents new data.
+Self-plagiarism or multiple publication of the same content with different titles or in different journals is sometimes also considered misconduct; scientific journals explicitly ask authors not to do this. This practice, often called ‘salami publication,’ refers to dividing one study into multiple smaller publications and is generally discouraged by journals and research integrity guidelines. According to some editors, this includes publishing the same article in a different language if the same research as multiple publications is counted as separate research.
+Other types of research misconduct by authors are also recognized:
+
+Unmerited authorship is the practice of giving authorship credit to someone improperly. Ghostwriting describes when someone other than the named author(s) makes a major contribution to the research. Sometimes, this is done to mask contributions from authors with a conflict of interest. In other cases, a ghost authorship occurs where the ghost author sells the research paper to a colleague who wants the publication in order to boost their publishing metrics. Guest authorship is the phenomenon wherein authorship is given to someone who has not made any substantial contribution. This can be done by senior researchers who muscle their way onto the papers of inexperienced junior researchers as well as others that stack authorship in an effort to guarantee publication. This is much harder to prove due to a lack of consistency in defining "authorship" or "substantial contribution".
+Certain forms of citation bias, such as deliberately omitting scientific dissent, are discussed in the research integrity literature as practices that may undermine the scientific record. Academic bias can reduce academic freedom and hinder finding scientific truth.
+Misconduct during scholarly peer review process:

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific misconduct"
+chunk: 2/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+A reviewer or editor with a conflict of interest can coerce the author to cite the reviewer's publications prior to recommending publication. This can inflate the perceived citation impact of a researcher's work and their reputation in the scientific community, similar to excessive self-citation.
+Suggesting fake peer reviewers can happen when journals invite authors to recommend a list of suitable peer reviewers, along with their contact information. In some cases, authors have recommended a "reviewer" for whom they provide a fake email address that in fact belongs to the author. If the editor follows the author's reviewer recommendation, the author can then write their own review.
+A rarer case of scientific misconduct is editorial misconduct, where an editor does not declare conflicts of interest, creates pseudonyms to review papers, gives strongly worded editorial decisions to support reviews suggesting to add excessive citations to their own unrelated works or to add themselves as a co-author or their name to the title of the manuscript.
+
+=== Photo manipulation ===
+Manipulation of images constitutes a form of research misconduct that some journals actively screen for because it can be detected through image analysis tools. In 2006, the Journal of Cell Biology gained publicity for instituting tests to detect photo manipulation in papers that were being considered for publication. This was in response to the increased usage of programs such as Adobe Photoshop by scientists, which facilitate photo manipulation. Since then more publishers, including the Nature Publishing Group, have instituted similar tests and require authors to minimize and specify the extent of photo manipulation when a manuscript is submitted for publication. However, there is little evidence to indicate that such tests are applied rigorously. One Nature paper published in 2009 has subsequently been reported to contain around 20 separate instances of image fraud.
+Although the type of manipulation that is allowed can depend greatly on the type of experiment that is presented and also differ from one journal to another, in general the following manipulations are not allowed:
+
+splicing together different images to represent a single experiment
+changing brightness and contrast of only a part of the image
+any change that conceals information, even when it is considered to be non-specific, which includes:
+changing brightness and contrast to leave only the most intense signal
+using clone tools to hide information
+showing only a very small part of the photograph so that additional information is not visible
+Image manipulations are typically done on visually repetitive images such as those of blots and microscope images.
+
+== Motivations ==
+According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there are multiple motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised here. Research on the motivations for scientific misconduct often cites publication pressure and career incentives as contributing factors.
+
+Career pressure – Science is a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on their record of achievement to receive ongoing support and funding, and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". This pressure is stronger in some research settings than others, contributing to the increased prevalence of misconduct in some parts of the world than others. This may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.
+Ease of fabrication – In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they may expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There are few strongly backed systems to investigate possible violations, attempt to press charges, or punish deliberate misconduct. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data.
+Monetary gain – In many scientific fields, the most lucrative options for professionals are often selling opinions. Corporations can pay experts to support products directly or indirectly via conferences. Psychologists can make money by repeatedly acting as an expert witness in custody proceedings for the same law firms.
+Political bias among scientists can motivate reduced scientific integrity and academic bias.
+
+== Roles ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific misconduct"
+chunk: 3/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Scientists ===
+All authors of a scientific publication are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to academic journals for publication.
+Simultaneous submission of scientific findings to more than one journal or duplicate publication of findings is usually regarded as misconduct, under what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named after the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine 1967–1977, Franz Ingelfinger.
+Guest authorship (where there is stated authorship in the absence of involvement, also known as gift authorship) and ghost authorship (where the real author is not listed as an author) are commonly regarded as forms of research misconduct. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused of inappropriate behavior or research misconduct for failing to verify reports authored by others or by a commercial sponsor. Examples include the case of Gerald Schatten who co-authored with Hwang Woo-Suk, the case of Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain named as guest author of papers fabricated by Malcolm Pearce, (Chamberlain was exonerated from collusion in Pearce's deception) – and the coauthors with Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Laboratories. More recent cases include that of Charles Nemeroff, then the editor-in-chief of Neuropsychopharmacology, and a well-documented case involving the drug Actonel.
+Authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication. The failure to keep data may be regarded as misconduct. Some scientific journals require that authors provide information to allow readers to determine whether the authors might have commercial or non-commercial conflicts of interest. Authors are also commonly required to provide information about ethical aspects of research, particularly where research involves human or animal participants or use of biological material. Provision of incorrect information to journals may be regarded as misconduct. Financial pressures on universities have encouraged this type of misconduct. The majority of recent cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies.
+
+=== Research institution ===
+In general, defining whether an individual is guilty of misconduct requires a detailed investigation by the individual's employing academic institution. Such investigations require detailed and rigorous processes and can be extremely costly. Furthermore, the more senior the individual under suspicion, the more likely it is that conflicts of interest will compromise the investigation. In many countries (with the notable exception of the United States) acquisition of funds on the basis of fraudulent data is not a legal offence and there is consequently no regulator to oversee investigations into alleged research misconduct. Universities therefore have few incentives to investigate allegations in a robust manner, or act on the findings of such investigations if they vindicate the allegation.
+Well publicised cases illustrate the potential role that senior academics in research institutions play in concealing scientific misconduct. A King's College (London) internal investigation showed research findings from one of their researchers to be 'at best unreliable, and in many cases spurious' but the college took no action, such as retracting relevant published research or preventing further episodes from occurring.
+In a more recent case an internal investigation at the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune determined that there was evidence of misconduct by Gopal Kundu, but an external committee was then organised which dismissed the allegation, and the NCCS issued a memorandum exonerating the authors of all charges of misconduct. Undeterred by the NCCS exoneration, the relevant journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) withdrew the paper based on its own analysis.
+
+=== Scientific peers ===
+Some academics believe that scientific colleagues who suspect scientific misconduct should take informal action themselves, or report their concerns. This question is of great importance since much research suggests that it is very difficult for people to act or come forward when they see unacceptable behavior, unless they have help from their organizations. A written guide and the existence of a confidential organizational ombudsman may help people who are uncertain about what to do, or afraid of bad consequences for their speaking up.
+
+=== Journals ===
+Journals are responsible for safeguarding the research record and hence have a critical role in dealing with suspected misconduct. This is recognised by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which has issued clear guidelines on the form (e.g. retraction) that concerns over the research record should take.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific misconduct"
+chunk: 4/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The COPE guidelines state that journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism and unethical research.
+Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors, there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors' institution will not investigate the case, they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.
+Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error), or the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).
+Evidence emerged in 2012 that journals learning of cases where there is strong evidence of possible misconduct, with issues potentially affecting a large portion of the findings, frequently fail to issue an expression of concern or correspond with the host institution so that an investigation can be undertaken. In one case, Nature allowed a corrigendum to be published despite clear evidence of image fraud. Subsequent retraction of the paper required the actions of an independent whistleblower.
+The cases of Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii in anaesthesiology  focussed attention on the role that journals play in perpetuating scientific fraud as well as how they can deal with it. In the Boldt case, the editors-in-chief of 18 specialist journals (generally anesthesia and intensive care) made a joint statement regarding 88 published clinical trials conducted without Ethics Committee approval. In the Fujii case, involving nearly 200 papers, the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia, which published 24 of Fujii's papers, has accepted that its handling of the issue was inadequate.  Following publication of a letter to the editor from Kranke and colleagues in April 2000, along with a non-specific response from Dr. Fujii, there was no follow-up on the allegation of data manipulation and no request for an institutional review of Dr. Fujii's research. Anesthesia & Analgesia went on to publish 11 additional manuscripts by Dr. Fujii following the 2000 allegations of research fraud, with Editor Steven Shafer stating in March 2012 that subsequent submissions to the journal by Dr. Fujii should not have been published without first vetting the allegations of fraud. In April 2012 Shafer led a group of editors to write a joint statement, in the form of an ultimatum made available to the public, to a large number of academic institutions where Fujii had been employed, offering these institutions the chance to attest to the integrity of the bulk of the allegedly fraudulent papers.
+
+=== Research paper mills ===
+In August 2025, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences uncovered evidence of large-scale scientific publishing fraud involving networks of editors, authors, and research paper mills. The investigation, reported by Science magazine, suggested that misconduct in academic publishing "has become an industry" due to the growing influence of paper mills and brokers.
+
+== Consequences ==
+
+=== Consequences for scientific knowledge ===
+The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected.  For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be wide-ranging, with others working to confirm (or refute) the false finding, or with research agendas being distorted to address the fraudulent evidence.  The Piltdown Man fraud is a case in point:  The significance of the bona-fide fossils that were being found was muted for decades because they disagreed with Piltdown Man and the preconceived notions that those faked fossils supported.  In addition, the prominent paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward spent time at Piltdown each year until he died, trying to find more Piltdown Man remains.  The misdirection of resources kept others from taking the real fossils more seriously and delayed the reaching of a correct understanding of human evolution.  (The Taung Child, which should have been the death knell for the view that the human brain evolved first, was instead treated very critically because of its disagreement with the Piltdown Man evidence.)
+In the case of Prof. Don Poldermans, the misconduct occurred in reports of trials of treatment to prevent death and myocardial infarction in patients undergoing operations. The trial reports were relied upon to issue guidelines that applied for many years across North America and Europe.
+In the case of Dr Alfred Steinschneider, two decades and tens of millions of research dollars were lost trying to find the elusive link between infant sleep apnea, which Steinschneider said he had observed and recorded in his laboratory, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), of which he stated it was a precursor. The cover was blown in 1994, 22 years after Steinschneider's 1972 Pediatrics paper claiming such an association, when Waneta Hoyt, the mother of the patients in the paper, was arrested, indicted and convicted on five counts of second-degree murder for the smothering deaths of her five children. While that in itself was bad enough, the paper, presumably written as an attempt to save infants' lives, ironically was ultimately used as a defense by parents suspected in multiple deaths of their own children in cases of Münchausen syndrome by proxy. The 1972 Pediatrics paper was cited in 404 papers in the interim and is still listed on PubMed without comment.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-4.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific misconduct"
+chunk: 5/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Regulatory violations and consequences ===
+Title 10 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 50.5, Deliberate Misconduct of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, addresses the prohibition of certain activities by individual involved in NRC-licensed activities. 10 CFR 50.5 is designed to ensure the safety and integrity of nuclear operations. 10 CFR Part 50.9, Completeness and Accuracy of Information, focuses on the requirements for providing information and data to the NRC. The intent of 10 CFR 50.5 is to deter and penalize intentional wrongdoing (i.e., violations). 10 CFR 50.9 is crucial in maintaining transparency and reliability in the nuclear industry, which effectively emphasizes honesty and integrity in maintaining the safety and security of nuclear operations. Providing false or misleading information or data to the NRC is therefore a violation of 10 CFR 50.9.
+Violation of any of these rules can lead to severe penalties, including termination, fines and criminal prosecution. It can also result in the revocation of licenses or certifications, thereby barring individuals or entities from participating in any NRC-licensed activities in the future.
+
+=== Consequences for those who report misconduct ===
+The potentially severe consequences for individuals who are found to have engaged in misconduct also reflect on the institutions that host or employ them and also on the participants in any peer review process that has allowed the publication of questionable research.  This means that a range of actors in any case may have a motivation to suppress any evidence or suggestion of misconduct.  Persons who expose such cases, commonly called whistleblowers, find themselves open to retaliation by a number of different means. These negative consequences for exposers of misconduct have driven the development of whistle blowers charters – designed to protect those who raise concerns.
+
+== Incidence ==
+The vast majority of cases of scientific misconduct may not be reported. The number of article retractions in 2022 was nearly 5,500, but Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, co-founders of Retraction Watch, estimate that at least 100,000 retractions should occur every year, with only about one in five being due to "honest error". One survey of researchers found that 29% of researchers reported misusing authorship at least once during their career, such as giving "gift authorship" to people who were not involved in the research.
+A 2025 study by Northwestern university after reviewing aggregated data on the lists of deindexed journals from literature aggregators such as Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, data from Retraction Watch and PubPeer found that while the total number of research publications double every 15 years, articles from suspected research paper mills double every 1.5 years while the number of retracted articles double every 3.3 years and number of articles with PubPeer comments double every 3.6 years.
+Recent work by Ilka Agricola and colleagues has for the first time systematically documented fraudulent practices in mathematical publishing and proposed concrete measures to address them. In "Fraudulent Publishing in the Mathematical Sciences," Agricola et al. analyze how predatory journals, paper mills, and citation cartels exploit bibliometric incentives, warning that unvetted "proofs" in low-quality outlets can mislead subsequent research. Published simultaneously on arXiv and in the October 2025 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, the report highlights alarming patterns—such as Clarivate's 2023 exclusion of mathematics from its Highly Cited Researchers list due to metric gaming—and traces the emergence of systematic fraud in a field previously thought immune to such issues. A follow-up paper, "How to Fight Fraudulent Publishing in the Mathematical Sciences," endorsed by the International Mathematical Union and International Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, offers joint recommendations for researchers, institutions, and funders, including discouraging reliance on raw publication and citation counts, promoting expert peer review over bibliometrics, and using curated databases (e.g., zbMATH Open) to vet journals. Commenting on these findings, Agricola emphasized that "fraudulent publishing undermines trust in science and scientific results and therefore fuels antiscience movements".
+
+== Notable cases ==
+
+In 1998 Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent research paper in The Lancet claiming links between the MMR vaccine, autism, and inflammatory bowel disease. In 2010, he was found guilty of dishonesty in his research and banned from medicine by the UK General Medical Council following an investigation by Brian Deer of the London Sunday Times.
+The claims in Wakefield's paper were widely reported, leading to a sharp drop in vaccination rates in the UK and Ireland and outbreaks of mumps and measles. Promotion of the claimed link continues to fuel the anti-vaccination movement.
+In 2011 Diederik Stapel, a highly regarded Dutch social psychologist, was discovered to have fabricated data in dozens of studies on human behaviour. He has been called "the biggest con man in academic science".
+In 2020, Sapan Desai and his coauthors published two papers in the prestigious medical journals The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The papers were based on a very large dataset published by Surgisphere, a company owned by Desai. The dataset was exposed as a fabrication, and the papers were soon retracted.
+In 2024, Eliezer Masliah, head of the Division of Neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging, was suspected of having manipulated and inappropriately reused images in over 100 scientific papers spanning several decades, including those that were used by the FDA to greenlight testing for the experimental drug prasinezumab as a treatment for Parkinson's.
+
+== Proposed responses ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct-5.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+title: "Scientific misconduct"
+chunk: 6/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Exposure ===
+There are several tools available to aid in the detection of plagiarism and multiple publication within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. Harold Garner's laboratory at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà vu, an open-access database containing several thousand instances of duplicate publication. All of the entries in the database were discovered through the use of text data mining algorithm eTBLAST, also created in Dr. Garner's laboratory. The creation of Déjà vu and the subsequent classification of several hundred articles contained therein have ignited much discussion in the scientific community concerning issues such as ethical behavior, journal standards, and intellectual copyright. Studies within this database have been published in journals such as Nature and Science, among others.
+Other tools which may be used to detect fraudulent data include error analysis. Measurements generally have a small amount of error, and repeated measurements of the same item will generally result in slight differences in readings. These differences can be analyzed, and follow certain known mathematical and statistical properties. Should a set of data appear to be too faithful to the hypothesis, i.e., the amount of error that would normally be in such measurements does not appear, a conclusion can be drawn that the data may have been forged. Error analysis alone is typically not sufficient to prove that data have been falsified or fabricated, but it may provide the supporting evidence necessary to confirm suspicions of misconduct.
+
+=== Data sharing ===
+Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggest, "Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud or misconduct."
+
+=== Changing research valuation ===
+Since 2012, the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), from San Francisco, gathered many institutions, publishers, and individuals committing to improving the metrics used to assess research and to stop focusing on the journal impact factor.
+
+== See also ==
+
+== References ==
+
+== Further reading ==
+Claus Emmeche. "An old and a recent example of scientific fraud" (PowerPoint). Retrieved 2007-05-18.
+Sam Kean (2021). The Icepick Surgeon: Murder, Fraud, Sabotage, Piracy, and Other Dastardly Deeds Perpetrated in the Name of Science. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-49650-6.
+Patricia Keith-Spiegel, Joan Sieber, and Gerald P. Koocher (November, 2010). Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User Friendly Guide.
+Jargin SV. Misconduct in Medical Research and Practice. Nova Science Publishers, 2020. Misconduct in Medical Research and Practice – Nova Science Publishers
+
+== External links ==
+ Media related to Scientific misconduct at Wikimedia Commons
+Publication ethics checklist (PDF) (for routine use during manuscript submission to a scientific journal)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_jurisprudence-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+title: "Therapeutic jurisprudence"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_jurisprudence"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:40.248804+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is an interdisciplinary approach to legal scholarship with the goal of reforming the law so it has a positive impact on the well-being of defendants appearing in court. TJ researchers and practitioners typically make use of social science methods to explore ways in which negative consequences can be reduced, and therapeutic consequences enhanced, without breaching due process requirements. By taking a non-adversarial approach to the administration of justice, judges and lawyers work together to create strategies that help offenders make positive changes in their own lives. Therapeutic jurisprudence has been used successfully in mental health courts and other problem-solving courts, such as drug courts for defendants with addictions.
+
+
+== Early development ==
+The term was first used by Professor David Wexler, of the University of Arizona Rogers College of Law and University of Puerto Rico School of Law, in a paper delivered to the National Institute of Mental Health in 1987. Constance Backhouse, a leading legal historian from Canada, has published a biography of Wexler and his work. Along with Professor Bruce Winick of the University of Miami School of Law, who developed the area with Wexler, these law professors suggested the need for a new perspective, TJ, to study the extent to which substantive rules, legal procedures, and the role of legal actors (primarily lawyers and judges) produce therapeutic or antitherapeutic consequences for individuals involved in the legal process. 
+In the early 1990s, legal scholars began to use the term when discussing mental health law, including Wexler in his 1990 book Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Law as a Therapeutic Agent, and Wexler and Winick in their 1991 book, Essays in Therapeutic Jurisprudence.  The TJ Approach soon spread beyond mental health law to include TJ work in criminal law, family and juvenile law, health law, tort law, contracts and commercial law, trusts and estates law, disability law, constitutional law, evidence law, and legal profession.  In short, TJ became a mental health approach to law generally.
+The approach was soon applied to the way various legal actors—judges, lawyers, police officers, and psychologists and criminal justice professionals—play their roles, suggesting ways of doing so that would diminish unintended antitherapeutic consequences and increase the psychological well-being of those who come into contact with these legal figures.  In 1999 in a Notre Dame Law Review article TJ was applied to drug treatment courts (DTC) for the first time and the authors asserted that DTCs were TJ in action and that TJ provided the jurisprudential underpinnings of DTCs.  TJ has emerged as the theoretical foundation for the increasing number of "problem-solving courts" that have transformed the role of the judiciary.  These include, in addition to DTCs, domestic violence courts, mental health courts, re-entry courts, teen courts, and community courts.
+Some countries embraced the TJ movement more than others: particularly the United States where it originated, as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with England slower until recently, while nevertheless developing some problem-solving courts. More recently, TJ concepts have entered into the systems of various other countries, such as Israel, Pakistan, India, and Japan. Now, the field is fully international and robust, as evidenced by the recent launch of the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence, a society with a comprehensive and authoritative website.
+
+
+== Reframing roles ==
+Therapeutic Jurisprudence also has been applied in an effort to reframe the role of the lawyer.  It envisions lawyers practicing with an ethic of care and heightened interpersonal skills, who value the psychological well being of their clients as well as their legal rights and interests, and to actively seek to prevent legal problems through creative drafting and problem-solving approaches.  TJ also has begun to transform legal education, in particular clinical legal education.
+
+
+== Mainstreaming ==
+Traditionally, TJ was closely associated with problem-solving courts, such as drug treatment courts, because such courts were designed to invite the use of TJ practices (such as procedural justice, judge-client personal interaction, demonstration of empathy, active listening, and the like). Many desire the expansion of problem-solving courts, but for a number of reasons, especially economic ones, expansion on a large scale seems unlikely; in fact, in some jurisdictions, economic factors have even led to the elimination of such courts.  For these and other reasons, a current interest on the part of many TJ scholars and proponents is to "mainstream" TJ—that is, to try to apply TJ practices and principles in "ordinary" courts, especially in criminal, juvenile, and perhaps family matters.
+In order to mainstream TJ, a first analytical step is to see to what extent existing provisions of current codes are "friendly"to TJ—that is, whether their legal structure is sufficient to permit the introduction of TJ practices. If so, educational programs should be instituted to discuss how the law may be implemented in a more therapeutic manner. If not, a discussion would be necessary about the desirability and feasibility of legal reform. The analytical methodology in use here employs the metaphor of "wine" and "bottles", where the TJ practices and techniques are the wine and the governing legal structures are the bottles. The mainstreaming project is facilitated by a Blog entitled Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Mainstream.
+
+
+== Related concepts ==
+Therapeutic jurisprudence has been described as a subset of legal psychology, meaning the scientific study of mind and behavior as it affects or is affected by the law. As well, the term psychological jurisprudence has been used to describe study of the law as it is affected by and affects mind and behavior. Another related concept is restorative justice. The fields of forensic psychology and forensic psychiatry also operate at the juncture of law and the mind.
+The idea that the law can have a therapeutic role should not be confused with any idea that psychological therapies should be attempted to be used for legal ends (such as coercion) rather than clinically for clinical reasons. TJ theorists have also warned against the legal system uncritically accepting psychological experts and theories, and to not allow legal issues to masquerade as clinical ones if they are not.
+Coming from the opposite direction, a related approach now dubbed 'jurisprudent psychology' (originally therapy) looks at whether psychological interventions are conducted fairly and consistently with legal concepts of justice.
+Therapeutic jurisprudence is also linked to the positive criminology perspective, which is a conceptual approach to criminology that places an emphasis on social inclusion and on forces at individual, group, social and spiritual levels that are associated with the limiting of crime.
+The term therapeutic state has a similar meaning, albeit with more negative connotations. It has mainly been used by writers like Thomas Szasz who criticize the use of psychiatric language in politics and law enforcement.
+
+
+== Notes ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Australasian Therapeutic Jurisprudence Clearinghouse
+WFPL News: State of Affairs on Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Thursday, April 1, 2010
+From therapeutic jurisprudence...to jurisprudent therapy. Drogin EY. Behav Sci Law. 2000;18(4):489-98.
+Restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, and the rise of emotionally intelligent justice. Michael S King, Melbourne University Law Review, 2008
+How Therapeutic Jurisprudence Can Give Life to International Human Rights Michael L. Perlin, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, July 24, 2013