Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 399–409 | Cite as

Scientific Research and the Public Trust

  • David B. ResnikEmail author
Article

Abstract

This essay analyzes the concept of public trust in science and offers some guidance for ethicists, scientists, and policymakers who use this idea defend ethical rules or policies pertaining to the conduct of research. While the notion that public trusts science makes sense in the abstract, it may not be sufficiently focused to support the various rules and policies that authors have tried to derive from it, because the public is not a uniform body with a common set of interests. Well-focused arguments that use public trust to support rules or policies for the conduct of research should specify (a) which public is being referred to (e.g. the general public or a specific public, such as a particular community or group); (b) what this public expects from scientists; (c) how the rule or policy will ensure that these expectations are met; and (d) why is it important to meet these expectations.

Keywords

Public trust Science Ethics Policy Public expectations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Intramural Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). It does not represent the views of the NIEHS, NIH, or U.S. Government.

References

  1. Alberts, B., & Shine, K. (1994). Scientists and the integrity of research. Science, 266, 1660–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Public Health Association. (2010). Ethical guidelines. Accessed March 2, 2010, from http://www.apha.org/programs/education/progeduethicalguidelines.htm.
  3. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (2010). Code of ethics. Accessed March 2, 2010, from http://www.asbmb.org/Page.aspx?id=70&terms=ethics.
  4. Association of American Medical Colleges. (2001). Protecting subjects, preserving trust, promoting progress: Policy and guidelines for individual financial interests in human subjects research. Accessed March 2, 2010, from http://www.aamc.org/research/coi/firstreport.pdf.
  5. Baier, A. (1986). Trust and anti-trust. Ethics, 96, 231–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, L. (1996). Trust as non-cognitive security about motives. Ethics, 107, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blomqvist, K. (1997). The many faces of trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowen, A. (2002). Research involving pregnant women. In R. Amdur & E. Bankert (Eds.), Institutional review board management and function (pp. 380–382). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.Google Scholar
  9. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. (2009). On being a scientist (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. DeAngelis, C. (2000). Conflict of interest and the public trust. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 2237–2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dictionary.com. (2010). Public. Dictionary.com unabridged. Random House, Inc. Accessed May 12, 2010, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/public.
  12. Dresser, R. (2001). When science offers salvation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gambetta, D. (Ed.). (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relationships. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Govier, T. (1997). Social trust and human communities. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grady, C., Hampson, L., Wallen, G., Rivera-Goba, M., Carrington, K., & Mittleman, B. (2006). Exploring the ethics of clinical research in an urban community. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1996–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gurney, S., & Sass, J. (2001). Public trust requires disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Nature, 413, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haerlin, B., & Parr, D. (1999). How to restore public trust in science. Nature, 400, 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, M., Camacho, F., Lawlor, J., DePuy, V., Sugarman, J., & Weinfurt, K. (2006). Measuring trust in medical researchers. Medical Care, 44, 1048–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hardin, R. (2001). Trust. In L. Becker & C. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethics (2nd ed., pp. 1728–1731). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hardin, R. (2006). Trust. New York: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Preserving public trust: Accreditation and human research participant protection programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobson, P., & Parmet, W. (2007). A new era of unapproved drugs: The case of Abigail Alliance v Von Eschenbach. Journal of the American Medical Association, 297, 205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kass, N., Sugarman, J., Faden, R., & Schoch-Spana, M. (1996). Trust, the fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Center Report, 26(5), 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy, D. (2004). Clinical trials and public trust. Science, 306, 1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lind, U., Mose, T., & Knudsen, L. (2007). Participation in environmental health research by placenta donation—a perception study. Environmental Health, 6, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mastroianni, A. (2008). Sustaining public trust: Falling short in the protection of human research participants. Hastings Center Report, 38(3), 8–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDonald, M., Townsend, A., Cox, S., Paterson, N., & Lafrenière, D. (2008). Trust in health research relationships: Accounts of human subjects. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(4), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merton, V. (1993). The exclusion of pregnant, pregnable and once-pregnable people (a.k.a. women) from biomedical research. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 19, 369–451.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understand of Science, 13, 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, P., & Weijer, C. (2006). Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 542–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 684–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moore, D. (2003). Public lukewarm on animal rights. The Gallup Organization, May 21, 2003. Accessed March 13, 2010, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/8461/public-lukewarm-animal-rights.aspx.
  34. National Institutes of Health. (2010). NIH public trust. Accessed May 12, 2010, from http://publictrust.nih.gov/index.cfm.
  35. National Science Foundation. (2010). Science and technology indicators 2010. Accessed May 12, 2010, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c/cs1.htm.
  36. Neidich, A., Joseph, J., Ober, C., & Ross, L. (2008). Empirical data about women’s attitudes toward a hypothetical pediatric biobank. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 146A, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nisbett, M. (2004). Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Obama, B. (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies: Scientific integrity. March 9, 2009. Accessed May 12, 2010, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/.
  39. Priest, S. (2000). US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology, 18, 939–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Resnik, D. (2009). Playing politics with science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenberg, J. (1995). The practice of philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Schroeder, S., Zones, J., & Showstack, J. (1989). Academic medicine as a public trust. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, 803–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schüklenk, U. (2000). Access to experimental drugs in terminal illness. London: Informa Healthcare.Google Scholar
  44. Schüklenk, U., & Lowry, C. (2009). Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: Reviewing the ethical arguments. British Medical Bulletin, 89, 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sharp, R., & Foster, W. (2002). Community involvement in ethical review of genetic research: Lessons from American Indian and Alaska Native populations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(Supplement 2), 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994). Ethics of scientific research. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  48. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tullberg, J. (2008). Trust—the importance of trustfulness versus trustworthiness. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 2059–2071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weinfurt, K., Hall, M., Dinan, M., DePuy, V., Friedman, J., Allsbrook, J., et al. (2008). Effects of disclosing financial interests on attitudes toward clinical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(6), 860–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whitbeck, C. (1995). Truth and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institutes of HealthResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations