Difference in scientists' discourse about scientific fraud and impropriety

Fifty-one practising scientists made Q-sorts of 90 statements relating to scientific fraud and impropriety. Principal components analysis identified two major groups. Members of the first group (N=18) seemed to support the standard, or received, view about the nature of science and to interpret scientific fraud and impropriety in terms of the individual shortcomings of deviant scientists. Members of the second group (N=7) seemed to adopt a more critical position about the nature of science and were more likely to construe scientific fraud and impropriety as anticipated aspects of the operation of a human social institution. Some implications of these findings for an understanding of the current debate on scientific fraud and impropriety are considered.