Ambiguity, trust, and the responsible conduct of research |
| |
Authors: | Frederick Grinnell |
| |
Institution: | (1) Program of Ethies in Science and Medicine, Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, UT Southwestern Medical School, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, 75235-9039 Dallas, TX, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Ambiguity associated with everyday practice of science has made it difficult to reach a consensus on how to define misconduct
in science. This essay outlines some of the important ambiguities of practice such as distinguishing data from noise, deciding
whether results falsify a hypothesis, and converting research into research publications. The problem of ambiguity is further
compounded by the prior intellectual commitments inherent in choosing problems and in dealing with the skepticism of one's
colleagues. In preparing a draft code of ethics for the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), an
attempt was made to take into account the ambiguities of practice. Also, the draft code adopted trust as its leading principle,
specifically the importance of trust as a condition necessary for there to be science. During revision of the code, the focus
on trust was changed. The new orientation was on trust as a consequence of carrying out science responsibly. By addressing
the obligations necessary to engender trust, the ASBMB ethics code not only sets professional standards, but also makes a
clear statement of public accountability. |
| |
Keywords: | research ethics code truth ambiguity trust responsible research conduct |
本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|