Why The Sudbø-story only was as a story about Sudbø
A disscusion of the Sudbø-case with basis in the Vancouver-group requirements for authorship
ICMJE revised the uniform Requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedcal Journals february 2006 only one month after the so called Sudbø-story. The Sudbø story made headlines way outside the medical reserach environments. The medical doctor and dentist, Jon Sudbø confessed that he had manipulated data in his extensive research on oral cancer january 2006. This made a huge debate about ethical practise in medical research spring 2006. The manipulated research was first discovered in a Lancet article Sudbø and 13 other authors published autumn 2005. All of Sudbøs research through 13 years was then examined by a inquiry appointed by Radium- og Rikshospitalet and the University of Oslo. The Inquiry concluded that nearly all of Sudbøs research had to be withdrawn including his doctor thesis. Shortly after his liscences as a doctor and dentist was also withdrawn.
I want to discuss how the medical ethical framework functioned and eventually not functioned in this certain case. Primary through the Vancouver rules point IIa about authorship and contributorship. With the Inquirys report of 30.06.06 about the Sudbø-case as a basis I want to study the Vancouver-rules usefulness and benfit as a normative ethical tool for medical researchers and editors questioning authorship and contributorship. Theoretically the vancouver rules could be understood with basis in ethics of consequences , I will therefor try to discuss it within that context.