Skip to main content
Log in

Promoting responsible conduct: Striving for change rather than consensus

Commentary on “Ambiguity, trust, and the responsible conduct of research” (F. Grinnell)

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

I believe that the ASBMB and the SFN, as well as many scientific, engineering, and other professional societies have taken the right first step. They have taken some responsibility for providing guidelines to their members and others working in related areas. This is how it should be. If professional guidelines are to be meaningful, they must be defined in large part by the practitioners.

Yet, having agreed that we need professional societies to become involved, we now must determine the nature of that involvement. I hope that a comparison of the ASBMB and SFN documents will serve to illustrate the differences between two approaches. I cannot be sure that one is better than the other. But I do believe that we should not, cannot, avoid the details. I also believe that to affect change one needs to capture the attention of the audience and to promote active thought—discussion if possible, controversy if necessary. And change is what we need.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grinnell, F. (1992) The Scientific Attitude (2nd ed), Guilford Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Society for Neuroscience (1999) Responsible conduct regarding scientific communication, The Journal of Neuroscience 19: iii-xvi (also available at www.sfn.org/guidelines).

    Google Scholar 

  3. American Chemical Society (1995) Ethical guidelines to publication of chemical research, Chem. Rev. 95: 11A-13A.

    Google Scholar 

  4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, Journal of the American Medical Association 277: 927–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grinnell, F. (1997) Truth, fairness, and the definition of scientific misconduct. J. Lab Clin. Med. 129: 189–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. National Institutes of Health Guide for Grants and Contracts, Public Health Service policy relating to distribution of unique research resources produced with PHS funding. 21 (33), September 11, 1992. (http://www.nih.gov/grants/guide/1992/92.09.11/public-health-service/htm)

  7. Fischer, B.A. & Zigmond, M.J. (1996) Teaching ethics: resources for researchers. Trends in Neuroscience 19: 523–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zigmond, M.J. & Fischer, B.A. (1998) Surviving graduate school. In: Anderson, M. (ed.) Survival skills for graduate school and beyond, New Directions for Education Series #101, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Zigmond Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zigmond, M.J. Promoting responsible conduct: Striving for change rather than consensus. SCI ENG ETHICS 5, 219–228 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0013-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0013-x

Keywords

Navigation