Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 273–290 | Cite as

Co-responsibility for research integrity

  • Carl MitchamEmail author
Article

Abstract

To enlarge the discussion of scientific responsibility for research integrity, this paper offers two historico-philosophical observations. First, in the broad history of ideas, modern ethics replaces social role responsibility with appeals to abstract principles; by contrast, discussions within the scientific community of responsibility for research integrity constitute a rediscovery of the continuing vitality of role responsibility. This is a rediscovery from which philosophy itself may benefit. Second, within the context of scientists’ concerns, the idea of role responsibility has undergone significant evolution from “collective responsibility” to the notion of responsibility resting with a “trans-scientific community.” Further challenges nevertheless remain in order to relate scientific role responsibility for scientific integrity to the relationship between science and society. To promote a notion of integrity not just in science but in the science-society relationship, it may be useful to think in terms of a “co-responsibility” for scientific integrity.

Keywords

responsibility role responsibility role morality co-responsibility research integrity scientific responsibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mitcham, Carl, and Von Schomberg, René. (2000) “The Ethics of Engineers: From Occupational Role Responsibility to Public Co-responsibility.” In The Empirical Turn in the Philosophy of Technology, Kroes, Peter, and Meijers, Anthonie (Eds.), Research in Philosophy and Technology 20: 167–189.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sarbin, Theodore R. (1968) “Role: Psychological Aspects,” in: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Free Press, New York, vol. 13, p. 546.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galatians 3:28. New Testament of the Bible.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    1 Peter 3:13. New Testament of the Bible.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneewind, J.B. (1984) “The Divine Corporation and the History of Ethics,” in: Rorty, Richard, Schneewind, J.B., and Skinner, Quentin (Eds.), Philosophy in History: Essays on the Historiography of Philosophy, Cambridge University, New York, pp. 173–191.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bradley, F.H. (1911) Ethical Studies, Stechert, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merton, Robert K. (1942) “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order,” Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merton, Robert K. (1968) “The Matthew Effect in Science,” Science 159: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zuckerman, Harriet. (1988) “The Sociology of Science,” in: Smelser, N.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Sociology, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 511–574.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edge, David. (1995) “Reinventing the Wheel,” in: Jasanoff, Sheila, Markle, Gerald E., Petersen, James C., and Pinch, Trevor (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knorr Cetina, Karin. (1995) “Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science,” in: Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 140–166.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edwards, Paul (Ed.) (1967) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker, Lawrence C., and Becker, Charlotte B. (Eds.) (1991) Encyclopedia of Ethics, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borchert, Donald M. (Ed.) (1996) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Craig, Edward (Ed.). (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chadwick, Ruth. (Ed.) (1998) Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Teich, Albert H., and Frankel, Mark S. (1992) Good Science and Responsible Scientists: Meeting the Challenge of Fraud and Misconduct in Science. Directorate for Science and Policy Programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. (1984) Honor in Science, Sigma Xi, Research Triangle Park, NC. (Second edition, revised and enlarged, 1986.)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chubin, Daryl E. (1985) “Misconduct in Research: An Issue of Science Policy and Practice,” Minerva 23 2 (Summer): 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Braxton, John M. (Ed.). (1994). “Perspectives on Research Misconduct,” theme issue, Journal of Higher Education 65, 3 (May/June): 239–400.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Braxton, John M. (Ed.) (1999) Perspectives on Scholarly Misconduct in the Sciences, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weil, Vivian. (1997) “Science, Research Ethics of” in: The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement, Macmillan, New York, pp. 519–521.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, Michael. (1999) Ethics and the University, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Committee on the Conduct of Science, National Academy of Sciences. (1989) On Being a Scientist, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (1992) Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, vol. 1, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frankel, Mark S. (1993) “Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct,” Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, vol. 2, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    National Institutes of Health. (1986) NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, 15 (July 18): 2.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 689 (July 1, 1987).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buzzelli, Donald E. (1994) “NSF’s Definition of Misconduct in Science,” Centennial Review, 38, 2 (Spring): 273–296.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (1995) On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, 2nd edition, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chalk, Rosemary; Frankel, Mark S.; and Chafer, Sallie B. (1980) AAAS Professional Ethics Project: Professional Ethics Activities in the Scientific and Engineering Societies. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Monastersky, Richard. (2002) “Publish and Perish?” Chronicle of Higher Education (October 11), pp. A16–A19.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Davis, Michael. (1998) “Conflict of Interest,” in: Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, vol. 1, pp. 589–595.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jonas, Hans. (1984) The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harremoës, Paul; Gee, David; MacGarvin, Malcolm; Stirling, Andy; Keys, Jane; Wynne, Brian; and Vaz, Sofia Guedes, eds. (2001) Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online at http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en.)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    “AAAS Science and Human Rights Program.” shr.aaas.orgGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Richardson, Henry S. (1999) “Institutionally Divided Moral Responsibility” in: Paul, Ellen Frankel, Miller, Fred D. Jr., and Paul, Jeffrey (Eds.), Responsibility, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 218–249.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis F. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement: Why Moral Conflict Cannot Be Avoided in Politics, and What Should Be Done About It, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bradbury, Judith A., and Branch, Kristi M. (1999) An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Local Site-Specific Advisory Boards for U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Programs, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Greenberg, Daniel S. (2002) “Self-Restraint by Scientists Can Avert Federal Intrusion,” Chronicle of Higher Education (October 11), p. B20.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Atlas, Ronald M. (2002) “National Security and the Biological Research Community,” Science 298: 753–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mitcham, Carl. (2001) “Los científicos e ingenieros como críticos morales en el mundo tecnocientífico,” in: Ibarra, Andoni and López Cerezo, José Antonio (Eds.), Desafios y tensiones actuales en ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, Biblioteca Nueva and the Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos, Madrid, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mitcham, Carl. (2003) “Professional Idealism among Scientists and Engineers: A Neglected Tradition in STS Studies,” Technology in Society, in press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sonnert, Gerhard, and Holton, Gerald. (2002) Ivory Bridges: Connecting Science and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Liberal Arts & International StudiesColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations