The case is thought-provoking on many levels, particularly for faculty who have seen examples of academic mischief by students or colleagues, or who have thwarted a few and been unsuccessful in thwarting others. It seems fair to say that the number of instances is greater than the 200 allegations sent to the Office of Research Integrity each year. Let's examine the essence of the problem that faces us. This might be called a working hypothesis.
Limiting resources are things that are vital for survival and reproduction.
It seems to me that what we define as academic misconduct arises from the latter behavior, which also is indigenous to many lower forms of life. And the observable truth about low life forms of behavior is that they are successful and have adaptive value in many environments. Hold this thought, because it may help explain some of the motivation for problems that face us in the current university environment. It is easy to learn that competition is considered good whenever the home university gets more money, or keeps more money, than alternative recipients. How tragic that in a profession that prizes knowledge for all as proof that everyone wins, we discover in fact that exhortation for competitiveness intrudes so forcefully that it can cloud judgments about honesty and fair play.