Scientific Self-Regulation—So Good, How Can it Fail?
- Patrick L. TaylorAffiliated withHarvard Medical School, Children’s Hospital Boston Email author
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
To be a functional alternative to government regulation, self-regulation of science must be credible to both scientists and the public, accountable, ethical, and effective. According to some, serious problems continue in research ethics in the United States despite a rich history of proposed self-regulatory standards and oversight devices. Successful efforts at self-regulation in stem cell research contrast with unsuccessful efforts in research ethics, particularly conflicts of interest. Part of the cause for a lack of success in self-regulation is fragmented, disconnected oversight, and failure to embody genuine scientific and public consensus. To be accountable, credible and effective, self-regulation must be inclusive and multidisciplinary, publicly engaged, sufficiently disinterested, operationally integrated with institutional goals, and must implement a genuine consensus among scientists and the public. The mechanisms of self-regulation must be sufficiently broad in their oversight, and interconnected with other institutional forces and actors, that they do not create fragmented solutions.
KeywordsResearch ethics Conflicts of interest Self-regulation Stem cells ESCROs Responsible conduct of research Misconduct
- Scientific Self-Regulation—So Good, How Can it Fail?
Science and Engineering Ethics
Volume 15, Issue 3 , pp 395-406
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Research ethics
- Conflicts of interest
- Stem cells
- Responsible conduct of research
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Harvard Medical School, Children’s Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA