Co-responsibility for research integrity


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  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.

  4. 4.

    1 Peter 3:13. New Testament of the Bible.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.)

  19. 19.

    Chubin, Daryl E. (1985) “Misconduct in Research: An Issue of Science Policy and Practice,” Minerva 23 2 (Summer): 175–202.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

  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

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    “AAAS Science and Human Rights Program.”

  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.

  41. 41.

    Atlas, Ronald M. (2002) “National Security and the Biological Research Community,” Science 298: 753–754.

    Article  Google 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.

  44. 44.

    Sonnert, Gerhard, and Holton, Gerald. (2002) Ivory Bridges: Connecting Science and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carl Mitcham.

Additional information

This paper revisits ideas initially developed in collaboration with René von Schomberg.1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mitcham, C. Co-responsibility for research integrity. SCI ENG ETHICS 9, 273–290 (2003).

Download citation


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