Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Research and the Public Trust

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay analyzes the concept of public trust in science and offers some guidance for ethicists, scientists, and policymakers who use this idea defend ethical rules or policies pertaining to the conduct of research. While the notion that public trusts science makes sense in the abstract, it may not be sufficiently focused to support the various rules and policies that authors have tried to derive from it, because the public is not a uniform body with a common set of interests. Well-focused arguments that use public trust to support rules or policies for the conduct of research should specify (a) which public is being referred to (e.g. the general public or a specific public, such as a particular community or group); (b) what this public expects from scientists; (c) how the rule or policy will ensure that these expectations are met; and (d) why is it important to meet these expectations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberts, B., & Shine, K. (1994). Scientists and the integrity of research. Science, 266, 1660–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Public Health Association. (2010). Ethical guidelines. Accessed March 2, 2010, from http://www.apha.org/programs/education/progeduethicalguidelines.htm.

  • American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (2010). Code of ethics. Accessed March 2, 2010, from http://www.asbmb.org/Page.aspx?id=70&terms=ethics.

  • Association of American Medical Colleges. (2001). Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress: Policy and guidelines for individual financial interests in human subjects research. Accessed March 2, 2010, from http://www.aamc.org/research/coi/firstreport.pdf.

  • Baier, A. (1986). Trust and anti-trust. Ethics, 96, 231–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. (1996). Trust as non-cognitive security about motives. Ethics, 107, 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomqvist, K. (1997). The many faces of trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13, 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, A. (2002). Research involving pregnant women. In R. Amdur & E. Bankert (Eds.), Institutional review board management and function (pp. 380–382). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. (2009). On being a scientist (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis, C. (2000). Conflict of interest and the public trust. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 2237–2238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dictionary.com. (2010). Public. Dictionary.com unabridged. Random House, Inc. Accessed May 12, 2010, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/public.

  • Dresser, R. (2001). When science offers salvation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta, D. (Ed.). (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relationships. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, T. (1997). Social trust and human communities. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady, C., Hampson, L., Wallen, G., Rivera-Goba, M., Carrington, K., & Mittleman, B. (2006). Exploring the ethics of clinical research in an urban community. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1996–2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurney, S., & Sass, J. (2001). Public trust requires disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Nature, 413, 565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haerlin, B., & Parr, D. (1999). How to restore public trust in science. Nature, 400, 499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M., Camacho, F., Lawlor, J., DePuy, V., Sugarman, J., & Weinfurt, K. (2006). Measuring trust in medical researchers. Medical Care, 44, 1048–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (2001). Trust. In L. Becker & C. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethics (2nd ed., pp. 1728–1731). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (2006). Trust. New York: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. (2001). Preserving public trust: Accreditation and human research participant protection programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, P., & Parmet, W. (2007). A new era of unapproved drugs: The case of Abigail Alliance v Von Eschenbach. Journal of the American Medical Association, 297, 205–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kass, N., Sugarman, J., Faden, R., & Schoch-Spana, M. (1996). Trust, the fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Center Report, 26(5), 25–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (2004). Clinical trials and public trust. Science, 306, 1649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, U., Mose, T., & Knudsen, L. (2007). Participation in environmental health research by placenta donation—a perception study. Environmental Health, 6, 36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastroianni, A. (2008). Sustaining public trust: Falling short in the protection of human research participants. Hastings Center Report, 38(3), 8–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M., Townsend, A., Cox, S., Paterson, N., & Lafrenière, D. (2008). Trust in health research relationships: Accounts of human subjects. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(4), 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, V. (1993). The exclusion of pregnant, pregnable and once-pregnable people (a.k.a. women) from biomedical research. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 19, 369–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understand of Science, 13, 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & Weijer, C. (2006). Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 542–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 684–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. (2003). Public lukewarm on animal rights. The Gallup Organization, May 21, 2003. Accessed March 13, 2010, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/8461/public-lukewarm-animal-rights.aspx.

  • National Institutes of Health. (2010). NIH public trust. Accessed May 12, 2010, from http://publictrust.nih.gov/index.cfm.

  • National Science Foundation. (2010). Science and technology indicators 2010. Accessed May 12, 2010, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c/cs1.htm.

  • Neidich, A., Joseph, J., Ober, C., & Ross, L. (2008). Empirical data about women’s attitudes toward a hypothetical pediatric biobank. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 146A, 297–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, M. (2004). Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obama, B. (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies: Scientific integrity. March 9, 2009. Accessed May 12, 2010, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/.

  • Priest, S. (2000). US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2009). Playing politics with science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, J. (1995). The practice of philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, S., Zones, J., & Showstack, J. (1989). Academic medicine as a public trust. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 803–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schüklenk, U. (2000). Access to experimental drugs in terminal illness. London: Informa Healthcare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schüklenk, U., & Lowry, C. (2009). Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: Reviewing the ethical arguments. British Medical Bulletin, 89, 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, R., & Foster, W. (2002). Community involvement in ethical review of genetic research: Lessons from American Indian and Alaska Native populations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(Supplement 2), 145–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994). Ethics of scientific research. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullberg, J. (2008). Trust—the importance of trustfulness versus trustworthiness. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 2059–2071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinfurt, K., Hall, M., Dinan, M., DePuy, V., Friedman, J., Allsbrook, J., et al. (2008). Effects of disclosing financial interests on attitudes toward clinical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(6), 860–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitbeck, C. (1995). Truth and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Intramural Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). It does not represent the views of the NIEHS, NIH, or U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Box 12233, Mail Drop CU 03, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA

    David B. Resnik

Authors
  1. David B. Resnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Resnik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resnik, D.B. Scientific Research and the Public Trust. Sci Eng Ethics 17, 399–409 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation