Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 21–29 | Cite as

Do we Need a Special Ethics for Research?

Original Paper

Abstract

Research is subject to more stringent ethical requirements than most other human activities, and a procedure that is otherwise allowed may be forbidden in research. Hence, risk-taking is more restricted in scientific research than in most non-research contexts, and privacy is better protected in scientific questionnaires than in marketing surveys. Potential arguments for this difference are scrutinized. The case in its favour appears to be weak. A stronger case can be made in favour of a difference in the opposite direction: If perilous or otherwise problematic activities have to be performed it is usually better to perform them in a research context where they are properly evaluated so that guidance is obtained for the future. However, retreating from current ethical demands on research is not a desirable direction to go. Instead, research ethics can serve to inspire the introduction of more stringent ethical principles in other social sectors.

Keywords

Research ethics Boundary problem Applied ethics Professional ethics Clinical trials Military ethics Data mining Privacy Risk 

References

  1. Ashcroft, R. (1999). Equipoise, knowledge and ethics in clinical research and practice. Bioethics, 13, 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyer, F. R., & Ker, K. (2009). Street lighting for preventing road traffic injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004728.html.
  3. Campbell, M. K., Snowdon, C., Francis, D., Elbourne, D., McDonald, A. M., Knight, R., Entwistle, V., Garcia, J., Roberts, I., & Grant, A. (2007). Recruitment to randomised trials: Strategies for trial enrollment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technology Assessment, 11(48), 1–105.Google Scholar
  4. Cummings, M. L. (2002). Informed consent and investigational new drug abuses in the U.S. military. Accountability in Research, 9(2), 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danna, A., & Gandy, O. H., Jr. (2002). All that glitters is not gold: Digging beneath the surface of data mining. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elvik, R. (1999). Assessing the validity of evaluation research by means of meta-analysis. TØI report 430/1999. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics, Norwegian Centre for Transport Research.Google Scholar
  7. Grant, A. M., Altman, D. G., Babiker, A. B., Campbell, M. K., Clemens, F. J., Darbyshire, J. H., Elbourne, D. R., McLeer, S. K., Parmar, M. K. B., Pocock, S. J., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Sydes, M. R., Walker, A. F., & Wallace, S. A. (2005). Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technology Assessment, 9(7), 1–238.Google Scholar
  8. Hansson, S. O. (1997). Critical effects and exposure limits. Risk Analysis, 17, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansson, S. O. (1998). Setting the limit. Occupational health standards and the limits of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hansson, S. O. (2006). Uncertainty and the ethics of clinical trials. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27, 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansson, S. O. (2007). Praxis relevance in science. Foundations of Science, 12, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansson, S. O. (2009). Ethics beyond application. In T. Takala, P. Herissone-Kelly, & S. Holm (Eds.), Cutting through the surface: Philosophical approaches to bioethics (pp. 19–28). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  13. Hays, C. L. (2004). What they know about you. New York Times, November 14, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. Highfield, R. (2008). Scientists get death threats over Large Hadron Collider. The Daily Telegraph (UK), September 5.Google Scholar
  15. Horvath, C. J., & Milton, M. N. (2009). The TeGenero incident and the duff report conclusions: A series of unfortunate events or an avoidable event? Toxicologic Pathology, 37, 372–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lag (2003:460) om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor [Act on ethical review of research involving human subjects]. Law adopted by the Swedish Parliament, promulgated June 5, 2003. http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3911&bet=2003:460.
  17. Mahan, C. M., Kang, H. K., Dalager, N. A., & Heller, J. M. (2004). Anthrax vaccination and self-reported symptoms, functional status, and medical conditions in the National Health Survey of Gulf War Era Veterans and Their Families. Annals of Epidemiology, 14, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Montori, V. M., Devereaux, P. J., Adhikari, K. J. N., Burns, K. E. A., Eggert, C. H., Briel, M., et al. (2005). Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: A systematic review. JAMA, 294, 2203–2209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mooney, C. (2005). The republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Moreno, J. D. (2001). Undue risk. Secret state experiments on humans. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Richter, E., Barach, P., Berman, T., Ben-David, G., & Weinberger, Z. (2001). Extending the boundaries of the Declaration of Helsinki: A case study of an unethical experiment in a non-medical setting. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27, 126–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saltzberg, J. (2008). The current embryonic stem cell research federal funding policy. Undue respect to minority ethical considerations? Journal of Legal Medicine, 29(4), 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Svensson, S., & Hansson, S. O. (2007). Protecting people in research—a comparison between biomedical and traffic research. Science and Engineering Ethic, 13, 99–115.Google Scholar
  24. van Wel, L., & Royakkers, L. (2004). Ethical issues in web data mining. Ethics and Information Technology, 6, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams, N. (2004). Fears grow about animal rights activists. Current Biology, 14, R819–R820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Williams, N. (2005). Animal rights protests build. Current Biology, 15, R856–R857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and the History of TechnologyRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations