Panel report: Biotechnology Resources Program (BRP)

During the past few years it has become increasingly apparent that even some of the most distinguished biomedical research institutions throughout the country are unable to provide their member scientists with either up-to-date health-relevant research tools or the opportunity to collaborate with innovative experts at the technology/medicine interface. Accordingly, a concerted effort in Biotechnology Resource Sharing was initiated and promoted during fiscal year 1974 and will continue for the forseeable future. The objective is to effect a more nearly equitable distribution of highly specialized research support capabilities in the nation, including especially those institutions having limited biotechnology capabilities but strong biomedical research programs and compelling biotechnology needs.     

The career states system model: A new approach to analysing careers

The changing careers of research scientists under the influence of contemporary pressures are examined, drawing on original case-study research covering four settings: higher education institutions, industrial R&D, government research laboratories, and research institutes. Moving away from the traditional linear model of career progression, a dynamic model of career states is introduced. This acknowledges that investment of individual and organisational energy in careers will ebb and flow under the influence of a range of contextual and personal variables. It is proposed that the career states system model can be used as an aid to careers guidance for both men and women. Some of the issues to which scientists must be alert in order to manage their careers effectively are addressed     

Research Integrity and Everyday Practice of Science

Science traditionally is taught as a linear process based on logic and carried out by objective researchers following the scientific method. Practice of science is a far more nuanced enterprise, one in which intuition and passion become just as important as objectivity and logic. Whether the activity is committing to study a particular research problem, drawing conclusions about a hypothesis under investigation, choosing whether to count results as data or experimental noise, or deciding what information to present in a research paper, ethical challenges inevitably will arise because of the ambiguities inherent in practice. Unless these ambiguities are acknowledged and their sources understood explicitly, responsible conduct of science education will not adequately prepare the individuals receiving the training for the kinds of decisions essential to research integrity that they will have to make as scientists.     

The NIH Roadmap: Are Psychologists In or Out?

Psychologists often express concerns about the inclusion of psychology in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap initiative. Most Roadmap themes focus on biomedical research, forming the basis for psychologists’ concerns. Although most Roadmap funding goes toward biomedical research, social and behavioral scientists do win support. It is reasonable to ask, however, why the Roadmap is focused so exclusively on medical research. One explanation is that medical interventions are seen as the natural translation of basic biomedical research, whereas psychological interventions are not perceived as following from basic behavioral research. Psychologists working in academic health centers represent the best opportunity for creating such linkages, and therefore the best potential bridge for psychology connecting to the NIH Roadmap. This paper represents the views of the author, and not necessarily those of the American Psychological Association and is based on a presentation given at the 3rd National Conference of the Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers in May 2007 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.     

The three Rs: a restrictive and refutable rigmarole

In 1959 Russell and Burch proposed "the three Rs" (reduction, refinement, or replacement) as principles for using fewer animals in research, reducing the pain and discomfort of those that are used, and substituting organic material in place of whole animals. Arguments that scientists should support the principles and arguments that they are restrictive and not fully relevant to the scientific enterprise are considered. The conclusion is that biological scientists should eschew their acceptance.     

The Three Rs: A Restrictive and Refutable Rigmarole

In 1959 Russell and Burch proposed "the three Rs" (reduction, refinement, or replacement) as principles for using fewer animals in research, reducing the pain and discomfort of those that are used, and substituting organic material in place of whole animals. Arguments that scientists should support the principles and arguments that they are restrictive and not fully relevant to the scientific enterprise are considered. The conclusion is that biological scientists should eschew their acceptance.     

Race and genetics: controversies in biomedical, behavioral, and forensic sciences

Among biomedical scientists, there is a great deal of controversy over the nature of race, the relevance of racial categories for research, and the proper methods of using racial variables. This article argues that researchers and scholars should avoid a binary-type argument, in which the question is whether to use race always or never. Researchers should instead focus on developing standards for when and how to use racial variables. The article then discusses 1 context, criminology, in which the use of racial variables in behavioral genetics research could be particularly problematic. If genetic studies of criminalized behavior use forensic DNA databanks or forensic genetic profiles, they will be confounded by the many racial biases of the law enforcement and penal system.     

Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on Experimental Practice in Medicine and the Life Sciences

The aim of this paper is to discuss a key question in the history and philosophy of medicine, namely how scholars should treat the practices and experimental hypotheses of modern life science laboratories. The paper seeks to introduce some prominent historiographical methods and theoretical approaches associated with biomedical research. Although medical scientists need no convincing that experimentation has a significant function in their laboratory work, historians, philosophers, and sociologists long neglected its importance when examining changes in medical theories or progress in scientific knowledge. The reason appears to have been the academic influence of the then dominant tradition in the history of ideas, but was also due to a misconception of what could usefully be termed the view on “historical ontology.” During the last two decades, there have been many books and research articles that have turned towards the subject, so that the study of experimental practice has become a major trend in the contemporary history and philosophy of medicine. A closer look at the issue of laboratory research shows that concepts in medicine and the life sciences cannot be understood as historically constant, free-standing ideas, but have to be regarded as dependent on local research settings. They often carry particular “social memories” with them and thus acquire important ethical implications.     

To a young basic scientist, about to embark on a program of translational research

From recent commentaries about the role of basic behavior scientists in translational research, I distill some advice to young investigators who seek to apply their basic science training to translational studies. Among the challenges are (a) devising use-inspired research programs that complement, and are not redundant with, existing efforts in basic and applied behavior analysis; and (b) making tactical decisions, such as the selection of methods and collaborators, based on the research topic rather than, necessarily, the existing traditions in behavioral research. Finally, it must be recognized that although use-inspired basic research has the potential to attract support to basic laboratories and contribute to "saving the world," neither of these outcomes is guaranteed. I discuss the relative risks for basic scientists who proceed with use-inspired basic research rather than ignore such translational questions.     

Just because you're imaging the brain doesn't mean you can stop using your head: a primer and set of first principles

Developments within the neurosciences, cognitive sciences, and social sciences have contributed to the emergence of social neuroscience. Among the most obvious contemporary developments are brain-imaging procedures such as functional magnetic resonance imaging. The authors outline a set of first principles designed to help make sense of brain-imaging research within the fields of cognitive and social neuroscience. They begin with a principle few would debate--that social cognition, emotion, and behavior involve the brain--but whose implications might not be entirely obvious to those new to the field. The authors conclude that (a). complex aspects of the mind and behavior will benefit from yet a broader collaboration of neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, and social scientists, and (b). social psychologists bring important theoretical, methodological, and statistical expertise to this interdisciplinary enterprise.     

THE SCIENTIST AS STATESMAN: BIOLOGISTS AND THIRD WORLD HEALTH

One of the most threatening problems the world faces is the growing poverty crisis and the related human rights inequalities and the spread of diseases in underprivileged areas. Human rights and relief organizations try hard to contain the devastation of these interconnected difficulties. What is the role of the biomedical scientist in this endeavor? The challenges that biomedical scientists face in their research lead us to question whether scientists can go beyond the time‐consuming realm of experimental investigation and engage the issues of society in a more public way. I suggest how the scientist's role can be expanded in our complex and precarious world, introducing the idea of the modern biomedical researcher as scientist, scholar‐philosopher, and statesman for the scientific community and the larger human rights community. I provide examples of where the scientist can interface with human rights organizations, medical doctors, political and civic leaders, and the science‐religion dialogue. My argument reveals the emerging role of the biomedical scientist as one of public service in addition to and beyond the realm of the experimental investigator. This role, however, is formidable, and I list some of the obstacles it entails.     

Speak No Evil: Scientists,Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science

In this paper, I will discuss the responsibilities that scientists have for ensuring their work is interpreted correctly. I will argue that there are three good reasons for scientists to work to ensure the appropriate communication of their findings. First, I will argue that scientists have a general obligation to ensure scientific research is communicated properly based on the vulnerability of others to the misrepresentation of their work. Second, I will argue that scientists have a special obligation to do so because of the power we as a society invest in them as specialists and professionals. Finally, I will argue that scientists ought to ensure their work is interpreted correctly based on prudential, self-interested considerations. I will conclude by offering suggestions regarding policy considerations.     

Getting scientists to think about what they are doing

Research scientists are trained to produce specialised bricks of knowledge, but not to look at the whole building. Increasing public concern about the social role of science is forcing science students to think about what they are actually learning to do. What sort of knowledge will they be producing, and how will it be used? Science education now requires serious consideration of these philosophical and ethical questions. But the many different forms of knowledge produced by modern science cannot be covered by any single philosophical principle. Sociology and cognitive psychology are also needed to understand what the sciences have in common and the significance of what they generate. Again, traditional modes of ethical analysis cannot deal adequately with the values, norms and interests activated by present-day technoscience without reference to its sociological, political and economic dimensions. What science education now requires is ‘metascience’, a discipline that extends beyond conventional philosophy and ethics to include the social and humanistic aspects of the scientific enterprise. For example, students need to learn about the practices, institutions, career choices, and societal responsibilities of research scientists, and to rehearse in advance some of the moral dilemmas that they are likely to meet. They need also to realise that science is changing rapidly, not only in its research techniques and organisational structures but also in its relationships with society at large.     

Psychophysical methods and life-span changes in visual illusions

Research designed to establish the relationship between chronological age and visual distortion has produced reliable but contradictory findings. It is proposed that the contradictions cannot be resolved by better experimental techniques; that laws do not exist in nature independently of the observer, and that psychological scientists must include the observer and the measuring device as integral components of their enterprise.     

COLLECTIVE RELIGIO‐SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONS ON ISLAM AND HIV/AIDS: I. BIOMEDICAL SCIENTISTS

During the 1990s, biomedical scientists and Muslim religious scholars collaborated to construe Islamic responses for the ethical questions raised by the AIDS pandemic. This is the first of a two‐part study examining this collective legal reasoning (ijtihād jamā‘ī). The main thesis is that the role of the biomedical scientists is not limited to presenting scientific information. They engaged in the human rights discourse pertinent to people living with HIV/AIDS, gave an account of the preventive strategy adopted by the World Health Organization, and offered an (Islamic) virtue‐based preventive model. Finally, these scientists tried to draft a number of Islamic legal rulings (a?kām), usually seen in Islamic jurisprudence as the exclusive business of Muslim religious scholars. This multilayered role played by the scientists reflects intriguing developments in the Islamic religio‐ethical discourse in general and in the field of Islamic jurisprudence in particular.     

Strangers at the benchside: research ethics consultation

Institutional ethics consultation services for biomedical scientists have begun to proliferate, especially for clinical researchers. We discuss several models of ethics consultation and describe a team-based approach used at Stanford University in the context of these models. As research ethics consultation services expand, there are many unresolved questions that need to be addressed, including what the scope, composition, and purpose of such services should be, whether core competencies for consultants can and should be defined, and how conflicts of interest should be mitigated. We make preliminary recommendations for the structure and process of research ethics consultation, based on our initial experiences in a pilot program.     

Laboratory Ritual: Experimentation and the Advancement of Science

Technical achievement in laboratories requires millennia–old ritual formulations; the methodological expectations and presuppositions of scientists stem not only from investigations of the last three centuries but also from the ritual knowledge making that has governed human religion. Laboratory research is a form of human ritual open to interpretation in the manner of religious ritual. The experiments of the laboratory are fact–gathering ventures, but the integration of that knowledge into our general understanding of a universe of information networks is the process of knowledge making, and it is the highest achievement of all rituals, be they religious or scientific. Ritual theory offers insight into the nature of scientific experimentation.     

Psychology and Health: Obstacles and Opportunities1

This paper begins with an overview of key achievements in health psychology. It describes major impediments to progress in the field, as well as opportunities for developing a strong scientific basis of efforts to modify health-damaging behavior. Strategies for capitalizing upon the opportunities are suggested. These include enhanced efforts at theory development, use of modern biomedical technology for in vivo research, experimentation with specific alternative research funding mechanisms, establishing procedures for training interdisciplinary researchers, and increased efforts by individual scientists to broaden their understanding of the relationship of their field to government. The importance of such initiatives to the continued growth of health psychology is emphasized.     

Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?

Using new survey data ( N = 1,646), we examine the attitudes academic scientists at 21 elite U.S. research universities have about the perceived conflict between religion and science. In contrast to public opinion and scholarly discourse, most scientists do not perceive a conflict between science and religion. Different from what other studies would indicate, this belief does not vary between social and natural scientists. We argue that maintaining plausibility frameworks for religion is an important correlate of whether scientists will reject the conflict paradigm, with such frameworks taking surprising forms. When scientists do not attend religious services they are more likely to accept the conflict paradigm. When scientists think their peers have a positive view of religion, they are less likely to agree there is a conflict between science and religion. Religious upbringing is associated with scientists adopting the conflict paradigm. Spirituality is much more important in this population than other research would lead us to believe. Results reformulate widely cited earlier research, offer new insights about how scientists view the connection between religion and science, and expand public discussion about religious challenges to science.     

Science, Ethics and War: A Pacifist’s Perspective

This article considers the ethical aspects of the question: should a scientist engage in war-related research, particularly use-inspired or applied research directed at the development of the means for the better waging of war? Because scientists are simultaneously professionals, citizens of a particular country, and human beings, they are subject to conflicting moral and practical demands. There are three major philosophical views concerning the morality of war that are relevant to this discussion: realism, just war theory and pacifism. In addition, the requirements of professional codes of ethics and common morality contribute to an ethical analysis of the involvement of scientists and engineers in war-related research and technology. Because modern total warfare, which is facilitated by the work of scientists and engineers, results in the inevitable killing of innocents, it follows that most, if not all, war-related research should be considered at least as morally suspect and probably as morally prohibited.