Journals / Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 2

Within the Timeline of Science Ethics: Two Parenting Advice Books and a Scientific Milestone

Bilim Etiğinin Zaman Tünelinde: İki Ebeveyn Tavsiye Kitabı ve Bilimde Bir Dönüm Noktası

Emel Aközer(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Fakültesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Mehmet Aközer(Sosyal Sektör Danışmanı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Pages
73–89
Publication Date
2014-08-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A strategy to fight plagiarism must be tested against whether or not it contributes to entrench the norm of scientific integrity and fairness principle or how far it contributes

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Plagiarism allegations on similarities between Dr.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Benjamin Spock’s Baby and Child Care 1946 and Dr.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A strategy to fight plagiarism must be tested against whether or not it contributes to entrench the norm of scientific integrity and fairness principle or how far it contributes
🔬Design:Makale
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bilim etiği · Şimdicilik · Etik ilkeler

Abstract

Plagiarism allegations on similarities between Dr. Benjamin Spock’s Baby and Child Care 1946 and Dr. İhsan Doğramacı’s Annenin Kitabı 1952; The Mother’s Book and the public presentation of the ruling on the 15th of April, 2014 by European Court of Human Rights consummating legal proceedings on these allegations, are not likely to contribute to ensuring a correct understanding of plagiarism as conceived in science ethics in the general public and scientific community. First, the Court has not ruled in support of the veracity of allegations. Second, parallels between the two books – regarding genre, claims to originality, and the nature of similarities – do not justify evaluation in reference to the concept of plagiarism as defined in science ethics. Besides, intellectual property law, on which allegations pretend to be based, cannot be taken to found illegitimacy of plagiarism in terms of science ethics. Science ethics defines plagiarism as misconduct positively with reference to norms of scientific integrity, the fairness principle, and values essential to collaborative work, rather than negatively with reference to violation of intellectual property. In the mid-20th century, in an environment where such principles or values have not yet taken root, the course of the discovery of DNA structure, one of the century’s greatest breakthroughs, has enabled ethics violations substantially surpassing issues of intellectual property or plagiarism, and moreover, these violations have apologists even today. Scientific integrity and fairness imply “treating colleagues with integrity and honesty” as equally as “providing proper references and giving due credits to the work of others”. Abusing plagiarism allegations as a means to defame colleagues or permitting such abuse to become commonplace neither suits advocacy of scientific ethics nor complies with the “fairness” principle. A strategy to fight plagiarism must be tested against whether or not it contributes to entrench the norm of scientific integrity and fairness principle or how far it contributes

Özet

Dr. Benjamin Spock’ın Baby and Child Care 1946 kitabı ile Dr. İhsan Doğramacı’nın Annenin Kitabı 1952 arasındaki benzerliklerle ilgili intihal iddiaları ve bu iddiaların yol açtığı hukuksal süreçte Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin 15 Nisan 2014 kararıyla ortaya çıkan sonucun topluma yansıtılışı, bilim etiği kapsamında intihale ilişkin doğru bir anlayışın genel kamuoyuna ve bilim topluluğuna kazandırılmasına katkıda bulunacak nitelikle değildir. Birincisi, mahkeme bu iddiaların doğruluğu yönünde bir karar vermemiştir. İkincisi, iki kitap arasındaki ilişki – türleri, özgünlük iddiaları ve benzerliklerin niteliği açısından – bilim etiğindeki tanımıyla intihal kavramı çerçevesinde değerlendirmeye izin vermez. İntihal iddialarının dayandırılmaya çalışıldığı fikri mülkiyet hukuku ise, bilim etiği açısından intihal kavramının temeline oturtulamaz. Bilim etiğinde intihal, fikri mülkiyet hukukuna aykırı olması bakımından negatif yoldan değil, bilimsel doğruluk normu ve adaletlilik ilkesi ile bilim insanlarının ortak çalışması için asli olan değerler bakımından pozitif yoldan bir kusurlu davranış olarak tanımlanır. 20. yüzyıl ortalarında bu ilke ve değerlerin yerleşmediği bir ortamda yüzyılın en büyük bilimsel gelişmelerinden biri olan DNA yapısının keşfinin öyküsü, fikri mülkiyet hukukunun da intihal fiilinin de kapsamını çok aşan ağır etik ihlallerine olanak vermiştir ve bu ihlaller bugün de savunulabilmektedir. Bilimsel doğruluk ve adaletlilik, “düzgün referanslar vermek ve başkalarının yapıtlarına gereken takdiri sunmak” kadar, “meslektaşlarına doğruluk ve dürüstlük içinde davranma” kuralını da içerir. İntihal iddialarını meslektaşları itibarsızlaştırmak için kullanmak veya bunu olağanlaştırmak “adaletlilik” ilkesiyle ne kadar bağdaşırsa, bilim etiğini savunma savıyla da o kadar bağdaşır. İntihalle mücadeleye yönelik bir stratejinin testi, bilimsel doğruluk normunu ve bu arada adaletlilik ilkesini yerleştirmeye gerçekten katkıda bulunup bulunmadığı ya da ne kadar katkıda bulunduğu olmalıdır

🔖

Cite This Article

Aközer, E., Aközer, M. (2014). Within the Timeline of Science Ethics: Two Parenting Advice Books and a Scientific Milestone. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, Sayı: 2, 73–89. https://ajindex.com/articles/1316835

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (76)

  1. Akar, N., Reisman, A., & Oral, A. (2007). Modernizer of Turkey’s pediatrics: Albert Eckstein in exile. Journal of Medical Biography, 15, 213–8. Retrieved from http://jmb.sagepub. com/content/15/4/213.full.pdf+html
  2. Akın, F. (2003). 1933’ten bu yana Türkiye’de üniversite. Mülkiye, 27(240), 207–245.
  3. Bast, C. M., & Samuels, L. B. (2008). Plagiarism and legal scholarship in the age of information sharing: The need for intellectual honesty. Catholic University Law Review, 57, 777– 815. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/ vol57/iss3/4
  4. Bateson, M. C. (1994). With a daughter’s eye: A memoir of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. New York: HarperPerennial.
  5. Bateson, M. C. (2005). Using and abusing the works of Margaret Mead. Pacific Studies, 28(3/4), 162–175. Retrieved from https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/PacificStudies/article/ viewFile/10318/9964
  6. Belge, M. (2001a, Kasım 16). Doğramacı. Radikal. Retrieved from http://www.radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/murat_belge/dogramaci -616150
  7. Belge, M. (2001b, Kasım 17). Doktorun kitabı. Radikal. Retrieved from http://www.radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/murat_belge/doktorun _kitabi-616278
  8. Belge, M. (2001c, Aralık 16). Bir mektup. Radikal. Retrieved from http://www.radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/murat_belge/bir_ mektup-618894
  9. Benjamin Spock (2001). In The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (2. Basım, s. 622–624).
  10. Black, H. C., Nolan, J. R., & Connolly, M. J. (1979). Black’s law dictionary (5th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co. Boratav, (2010, Şubat 28). İhsan Doğramacı. Sol Portal. Retrieved
  11. from http://haber.sol.org.tr/yazarlar/korkut-boratav/ihsandogramaci-24702 Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: words and ideas. Science & Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 311–322. Retrieved from http://link. springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-008-9057-6
  12. Branch, T. (2006). At Canaan’s edge: America in the King years, 1965–68. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  13. Carp, E. W. (2000). Spock on the examining table. Reviews in American History, 28(1), 128–133. Retrieved from https:// muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/ reviews_in_american_history/v028/28.1carp.html
  14. Chernyaeva, N. (2013). “Upbringing à la Dr. Spock:” Child-care manuals and constructing normative motherhood in the Soviet Union, 1954–1970. Ab Imperio, 2/2013, 223–251. doi: 10.1353/imp.2013.0048
  15. Children’s Bureau & Hymes, J. L. (1952). A healthy personality for your child (a popular version of part of the Fact Finding Digest prepared for the Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, Washington, December 1950). Children’s Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.mchlibrary.info/history/ chbu/parents.html
  16. Children’s Bureau (1965). The story of Infant Care. Us Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Welfare Administration. Retrieved from http://www.mchlibrary.info/history/chbu/ parents.html
  17. Clarke, R. (2006). Plagiarism by academics: More complex than it seems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(2), 91–121. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol7/ iss1/5
  18. Doğramacı, İ. (1952). Annenin kitabı: Gebelik ve doğumdan onbeş yaşına kadar çocuk bakımı, terbiyesi, beslenmesi, gelişmesi, hastalıklardan korunması ve hastalıkları. Ankara: Yeni Matbaa.
  19. Duenwald, M. (2004, Ağustos 3). The consumer; Child-rearing, by the book. Lots of books. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/health/the-consumerchild-rearing-by-the-book-lots-of-books.html
  20. Ergin, S. (2010, Şubat 17). Hocabey Ufuk’la benim elimden tuttu ve. Hürriyet. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ yazarlar/13949024.asp
  21. European Science Foundation (ESF) & All European Academies (ALLEA) (2011). The European code of conduct for research integrity. ESF & ALLEA: Ireg – Strasbourg. Retrieved from http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/ Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity.pdf
  22. Franklin R., & Gosling R. G. (1953, Nisan 25). Molecular configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate. Nature, 171, 740−741.
  23. Graebner, W. (1980). The unstable world of Benjamin Spock: Social engineering in a democratic culture, 1917–1950. The Journal of American History. Retrieved from http://www.jstor. org/stable/1889870
  24. Graebner, W. (1994). Dr. Benjamin Spock (1903– ): Celebrity author/ pediatrician, peace advocate. In D. DeLeon (Ed.), Leaders from the 1960s: A biographic sourcebook of American activism (s. 225–229). Westport, Connecticut, London: Greenwood Press.
  25. Grant, J. (1998). Raising baby by the book: The education of American mothers. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
  26. Grossberg, M. (2004). Plagiarism and professional ethics: A journal editor’s view. The Journal of American History. 90(4), 1333–1340. Retrieved from http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/ content/90/4/1333.extract
  27. Günay-Erkol, Ç., & Reisman, A. (2008). Émigré Albert Eckstein’s legacy on health care modernization in Turkey: Two generations of students who have made major contributions. Hygiea Internationalis: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the History of Public Health. doi: 10.3384/hygiea.1403-8668.0871
  28. Güneysu, S. (2001). Türkiye’de yayımlanan çocuk yetiştirmeye ilişkin kitapların incelenmesi. In B. Onur (Ed.), Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Değişen Çocukluk/Changing Childhood In The World and in Turkey (III. Ulusal Çocuk Kültürü Kongresi Bildirileri, 16– 18 Ekim 2000) (s. 195–213). Ankara: Çocuk Kültürü Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Yayınları No: 9. Retrieved from http:// kitaplar.ankara.edu.tr/dosyalar/pdf/137.pdf
  29. Hasan Yazıcı v. Turkey (Application no. 40877/07) ECHR. (2014, 15 Nisan). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/ pages/search.aspx?i=001-142637#{“itemid”:[“001-142637”]}
  30. Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213–231. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1503_2 Hoder-Salmon, M. (1978). Collecting scholar’s wives. Feminist Studies, 4(3), 107–114. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/3177543
  31. Hulbert, A. (1998, Aralık 7). Parents, peers, and the rearing of children: The influence of anxiety [Kitap eleştirisi: The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They
  32. Do, Judith Rich Harris; Three Seductive Ideas. Jerome Kagan]. The New Republic. Retrieved from http://business.highbeam. com/4776/article-1G1-53287537/parents-peers-and-rearingchildren-influence-anxiety
  33. Hulbert, A. (2011). Raising America: Experts, parents, and a century of advice about children. Random House LLC.
  34. Jump, P. (2014, Nisan 3). Zygmunt Bauman rebuffs plagiarism accusation. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from http:// www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/zygmunt-baumanrebuffs-plagiarism-accusation/2012405.article
  35. Kansu, E., & Ruacan, Ş. (2002). Bilimsel yanıltmanın günümüzdeki durumu, türleri, nedenleri, önlenmesi ve cezalandırılması. Türk Kardiyoloji Derneği Arşivi, 30(12), 763–767. Retrieved from http://www.tkd-online.org/dergi/TKDA_30_12_763_767.pdf
  36. Kernan, M. (1976, Mayıs 8). Dr. Spock changes image. Newspaper: San Antonio Express. Retrieved from http://www.newspapers. com/newspage/62170991/
  37. Klein, J. M. (2005, Kasım 11). Plagiarism and other unoriginal sins. Chronicle of Higher education, 52(12), B12. Database: Academic Search Complete
  38. Klemesrud, J. (1976, Mart 19). The Spocks: Bittersweet recognition in a revised classic. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/specials/spock-classic. html
  39. Koç, İ., Eryurt, M. A., Adalı, T., & Seçkiner, P. (2010). Türkiye’nin demografik dönüşümü: Doğurganlık, aile planlaması, anneçocuk sağlığı ve beş yaş altı ölümlerdeki değişimler: 1968– 2008. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü.
  40. Lenihan, J. (1968, Mayıs 16). How science doesn’t happen [Kitap eleştirisi: The Double Helix, yazan James D. Watson]. The Glasgow Herald. Retrieved from http://news.google.com/new spapers?nid=2507&dat=19680516&id=t21AAAAAIBAJ&sjid=p qMMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1933,2975955
  41. Maddox, B. (2002). Rosalind Franklin: The dark lady of DNA. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
  42. Martin, B. (1994). Plagiarism: A misplaced emphasis. Journal of Information Ethics, 3(2), 36−47. Retrieved from https://www. uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/94jie.html
  43. Maya, C. (2012, Kasım 19). Adapting the bible of childcare for India: A special edition of ‘Dr. Spock’s Baby and Childcare’ is being brought out for the country. The Hindu. Retrieved from http:// www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/ adapting-the-bible-of-childcare-for-india/article4109887.ece
  44. Mechling, J. (2003). Child-rearing advice literature. In Encyclopedia of children and childhood: In history and society (Vol. I, s. 170–174). Gale.
  45. Meyer, W. S. (2009). David James Fisher, Bettelheim: Living and dying [Kitap eleştirisi]. Clio Social Work Journal, 37, 89–91. doi: 10.1007/s10615-008-0179-8
  46. Mumcu, U. (1981, 29 Kasım). Dr. Spock ve. Prof. Doğramacı. Cumhuriyet.
  47. Nature (2013). Due credit. Nature, 496, 270. doi:10.1038/496270a Pace, E. (1998, Mart 17). Benjamin Spock, World’s pediatrician, dies at 94. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes.com/1998/03/17/us/benjamin-spock-world-spediatrician-dies-at-94.html?src=pm&pagewanted=3&pagew anted=all
  48. Pappas, T. (1998). Plagiarism and the culture war: The Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr, and other prominent Americans. Hallberg.
  49. Pecorari, D. (2008). Writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum.
  50. Pickett, R. S. (1987). Benjamin Spock and the Spock papers at Syracuse University. Syracuse University Library Associates Courier. XXII(2), 3–22. Retrieved from http://surface.syr.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1207&context=libassoc
  51. Pottishman Weiss, N. (1977). Mother, the invention of necessity: Dr. Benjamin Spock’s Baby and Child Care. American Quarterly. 29(5) (Special Issue: Reassesing Twentieth Century Documents), 519–546. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2712572
  52. Reed, H. A. (1975). Hacettepe and Middle East Technical Universities: New universities in Turkey. Minerva, 13(2), 200–235.
  53. Resnik, D. B. (2001, Mayıs 1). What is ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Retrieved from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/ research/resources/bioethics/whatis/
  54. Resnik, D. B. (2012). Research ethics timeline (1932−Present). Retrieved from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources /bioethics/timeline/index.cfm
  55. Roberts, T. S. (Ed.). (2008). Student plagiarism in an online world: Problems and solutions. New York: Information Science Reference.
  56. Rose, H. (2002, Haziran 15). In the shadow of the men [Kitap eleştirisi: Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA, Brenda Madox]. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www. theguardian.com/books/2002/jun/15/featuresreviews. guardianreview15
  57. Sandhu, V. (2012, Kasım 10). “Don’t rock the baby”: The “Indianised” version of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s best-known book on parenting is here. Business Standard. Retrieved from http:// www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/-don-trock-your-baby-112111000072_1.html
  58. Sayre, A. (1975). Rosalind Franklin and DNA. New York: Norton. Shengold, L. (2006). Haunted by parents. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
  59. Spock, B. (1968). Dr. Benjamin Spock: Baby and Child Care (3rd ed.). New York: Hawtorn Books, Inc.
  60. Spock, B. (1979). Pediatrics and politics – Dr. Benjamin Spock: Interviewed by Terry Murray. Canadian Family Physician, 25, 868–872. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC2383875/
  61. Spock, B. (1994). A better world for our children: Rebuilding American family values. National Press Books.
  62. Stasiak, A. (2003). The first lady of DNA. Science & Society. 4(1), 14. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.embor723
  63. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Bilim Etiği Komitesi. (2002). Bilimsel araştırmada etik ve sorunları. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Yayınları.
  64. Terzioğlu, A. (2002). Cumhuriyet dönemi Türk tıbbına ve tıp eğitimine kısa bir bakış. Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları, 2, 269–307. Retrieved from http://www.journals.istanbul.edu. tr/iuydta/article/view/1023019491
  65. The New York Times (1989, Haziran 14). Jane C. Spock, 82; Worked on baby book. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/1989/06/14/obituaries/jane-c-spock-82- worked-on-baby-book.html
  66. Viner, R. (1999). Politics, power, and pediatrics. Lancet, 353, 232–34. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)02320-4
  67. Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953, Nisan 25). A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.
  68. Watson, J. D. (1968). The Double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. Atheneum.
  69. West, M. (1913). Prenatal care. Care of Children Series, No. 1. Washington: US Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau, Julia C. Lathrop. Retrieved from http://www.mchlibrary.info/ history/chbu/2265-1913.PDF
  70. Wiener, J. (2005). Historians in trouble: Plagiarism, fraud, and politics in the ivory tower, New York: New Press.
  71. Wilkins M. H. F., Stokes A. R., & Wilson, H. R. (1953, Nisan 25). Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids. Nature, 171, 738–740.
  72. Wilkins, M. (2003). The third man of the double helix: The autobiography of Maurice Wilkins. Oxford University Press.
  73. Yaman, D. (2010). Fikir ve sanat eserleri kanununda düzenlenen bir eserden kaynak göstermeksizin iktibasta bulunma suçu. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(Özel Sayı), 2010, 1551–1567. Retrieved from http://web.deu.edu.tr/ hukuk/dergiler/dergimiz-12-ozel/3-kamu/11-dilarayaman.pdf
  74. Yazıcı, H. (2000, Kasım 15). Önce Doğramacı’yı kınamak lazım. Milliyet.
  75. Ergin, S. (2010, Şubat 17). Hocabey Ufuk’la benim elimden tuttu ve. Hürriyet. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ yazarlar/13949024.asp
  76. Mumcu, U. (1981, 29 Kasım). Dr. Spock ve. Prof. Doğramacı. Cumhuriyet.