Skip to main content
Log in

Do We Need Berlin Walls or Chinese Walls between Research, Public Consultation, and Advice? New Public Responsibilities for Life Scientists

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

During the coming decades, life scientists will become involved more than ever in the public and private lives of patients and consumers, as health and food sciences shift from a collective approach towards individualization, from a curative to a preventive approach, and from being driven by desires rather than by technology. This means that the traditional relationships between the activities of life scientists – conducting research, advising industry, governments, and patients/consumers, consulting the public, and prescribing products, be it patents, drugs or food products, information, or advice – are getting blurred. Traditional concepts of the individual, role, task, and collective responsibility have to be revised. This paper argues, from a pragmatic point of view, that the concept of public responsibility can contribute considerably in delineating new gray zones between the various roles of the life scientist: conducting research for governments or industry, giving advice, prescribing and selling products, and doing public consultation. The main issues are where new Chinese walls (not Berlin walls) need to be built between these activities, thereby increasing trust between life scientists and the public at large, and how to organize research agendas and to decide upon research topics.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Brown, J. Privatizing the University: The New Tragedy of the Commons, Science Magazine, online, pp. 1–3.

  • Bulger, R. (Ed.) (2002). The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological Sciences. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.) (2002). Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations (Science, Technology and International Political Economy). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1970). Action and Responsibility, idem, Doing and Deserving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennett, J. (2001). Agency and Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keulartz, J., Korthals, M., Schermer, M. and Swierstra, T. (Eds.) (2002). Pragmatist Ethics in a Technological Culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, Ph. (2001). Science, Truth and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereboom, D. (2002). Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestle, M. (2002). Food Politics: How Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. University of California Press.

  • Resnik, D. (1998). Ethics of Research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994). Ethics of Scientific Research. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Korthals, M. Do We Need Berlin Walls or Chinese Walls between Research, Public Consultation, and Advice? New Public Responsibilities for Life Scientists. Journal of Academic Ethics 1, 385–395 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAET.0000025670.82252.85

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAET.0000025670.82252.85

Navigation