Abstract
Responsibility within life science research is a highly scrutinised field. Increasingly, scientists are presented with a range of duties and expectations regarding their conduct within the research setting. In many cases, these duties are presented deontologically, forgoing extensive discussion on how these are practically implemented into the minutiae of daily research practices. This de-contextualized duty has proven problematic when it comes to practical issues of compliance, however it is not often considered as a fundamental aspect of building ethics discourse. This paper examines this issue in detail, particularly focusing on how differences in the contrasts between the ideal and real physical research environments cause conceptual problems for scientists and retard ethical engagement. Such issues are particularly pertinent in low- and middle-income countries. This paper combines theoretical and empirical analyses using the concept of “dual-use” as a focalizing topic. The data show that the research environment acts as an intimate component in the interpretation and implementation of ethical actions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The notion of role responsibilities emerged from legal studies and was first introduced by H. L. A Hart. It refers to the specific duties attached to a distinctive place or office in a social organization (Hart 2008). These duties provide for the welfare of others, or in some way advance the aims or purposes of the organization. The individual is said to be responsible for the performance of these duties, or for doing what is necessary to fulfill them.
Studies from business ethics have also raised such concerns, and their findings might prove particularly useful in the life sciences. These studies highlight the considerable involvement of the social, regulatory and physical environments on the creation and development of ethical behavior (Treviño 1986; Treviño and Youngblood 1990). Using this research, it is therefore possible to suggest that the research environment plays an active role in the creation of ethics within a community, and does not serve simply as a backdrop for the implementation of ethics. Thus, it is important to question whether the research environments, instead of being passive backdrops for the application of deontological rules, actually mold and shape ethical behavior within laboratories.
In this, I make use of the work of Daniel Chambliss. In his 1996 book Beyond Caring: Hospitals, Nurses, and the Social Organisation of Ethics, Chambliss examined ethical agency amongst nurses in hospitals. He proposed that many problems seen as ethical dilemmas actually arise when groups of two professions clash; when occupational groups have different motives; or when “the system” thwarts the efforts of certain people to do what they see as their job. Therefore he suggests that when considering problems that may appear to be ethical in nature it is important to consider the groups involved in the problem and their motives.
Influential research by many sociologists including Bruno Latour and Sharon Traweek have highlighted the highly social nature of laboratory life, and the considerable variation between national cultures of research (Latour and Woolgar 1986; Traweek 1988). These studies have highlighted the integral part that social aspects of laboratory life play in routine scientific procedures.
Despite a rising international endorsement for improving the integrity of scientific research environments, how they are fashioned on a national level remains markedly varied. Indeed, as Latour commented, although there has been considerable support for the notion that national styles in science—particularly amongst developed countries—have largely disappeared in the twentieth century, recent research has shown that these national styles are often more resilient than they were first thought to be and have continued to be perpetuated. Indeed, he observed that these national styles are often manifested in the social structure of research organizations (Latour and Woolgar 1986: 143). Such observations have been upheld by subsequent comparative studies of research environments. Studies, such as those conducted by Sharon Traweek, have demonstrated marked differences in the social construction of research organizations in different countries and the important role that they play in the manner in which research is conducted. Research such as this emphasizes the variability of the social environment of laboratories, and suggests that these variations often reflect cultural differences between nations (Traweek 1988).
Four laboratories were visited in four countries: South Africa (sites 1 and 4), Uganda (site 2), Kenya (site 3). Laboratories in the UK were also visited for comparison, although the data gathered from these laboratories are not reported in this paper.
At least 10 interviews with researchers, students and technicians and one focus group per site.
As the author has a previous training in life science research, a considerable amount of time was spent observing daily laboratory routines, how experiments were conducted, and what differences existed between the laboratories involved in the fieldwork.
Due to the relatively low number of research facilities within some African countries, there was always a remote chance that some aspect of the reported data would contain sufficient data for facility identification.
Or presented in standard operating procedures, grant agreements, memoranda of understanding or internationally endorsed guidelines such as (WHO 2004).
These possible (indeed, probable) complications in export and import that would result from improved international dual-use regulations often elicited sighs, shrugs, and eye rolling from the fieldwork participants, demonstrated the difficult situation in which the scientists found themselves. Furthermore, at least five participants at Site 1 and Site 3 mentioned anecdotes in which scientists circumvented legal customs procedures in order to avoid the bureaucracy surrounding sample transport. One participant at the KY1 site mentioned that: “[p]roblems are diverse.. in our scenario they don’t do what they are supposed to do. Over time you find people walking in and carrying away tissues and no one raises a concern” (Site 3: technician).
It was interesting to note that when I was told these stories the participants, while acknowledging that the behavior of the protagonist was wrong, expressed sympathy for them and believed that that they were acting with “beneficial intentions” at heart. It appeared that they viewed the need to conduct research as more important than dealing with a bureaucracy that was perceived as obtuse, poorly regulated and non-reflective of the needs of the science population.
In addition, dealing with waste also involves reusing and recycling large amount of glassware, instruments and laboratory clothing, as well as decontaminating, autoclaving or incinerating all infectious material within the laboratory (WHO 2004: 17).
References
Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007a). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860.
Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1994). The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education, 35, 273–299.
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., de Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007b). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 437–461.
Bezuidenhout, L. (2012). Research infrastructures, policies and the “web of prevention”: The ethical implications of inadequate research environments. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 28(1), 19–30.
Chambliss, D. F. (1996). Beyond caring: Hospitals, nurses, and the social organization of ethics . London: University of Chicago Press.
Christakis, D. A., & Feudtner, C. (1993). Ethics in a short white coat: The ethical dilemmas that medical students confront. Academic Medicine, 68, 249–254.
Clarkeburn, H., Downie, J. R., & Matthew, B. (2002). Impact of an ethics programme in a life science curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(1), 65–79.
Clevestig, P. (2009). Handbook of applied biosecurity for life science laboratories . Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Feudtner, C., Christakis, D. A., & Christakis, N. A. (1994). Do clinical clerks suffer ethical erosion? Students’ perceptions of their ethical environment and personal development. Academic Medicine, 69(8), 670–679.
Fine, J. C. (2007). Investing in STI in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from collaborative initiatives in research and higher education. In Global forum: Building science, technology and innovation capacity for sustainable growth and poverty reduction (pp. 13–15). Washington, DC.
Hart, H. L. A. (2008). Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heimer, C. A. (2012). Wicked’ ethics: Compliance work and the practice of ethics in HIV research. Social Science & Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.030.
Hundert, E. M., Hafferty, F. W., & Christakis, D. (1996). Characteristics of the informal curriculum and trainees’ ethical choices. Academic Medicine, 71(6), 624–633.
Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.
Katongole-Mbidde, E. (2008). Promoting biosafety and biosecurity within the life sciences. In Promoting biosafety and biosecurity within the life sciences: An International workshop in East Africa. Kampala, Uganda: Uganda National Academy of Science.
Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., Wenger, N. S., et al. (1998). Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(1), 41–47.
Kuhlau, F., Eriksson, S., Evers, K., & Hoglund, A. T. (2008). Taking due care: Moral obligations in dual use research. Bioethics, 22(9), 477–487.
Ladd, J. M., Lappe, M. D., McCormick, J. B., Boyce, A. M., & Cho, M. K. (2009). The “how” and “whys” of research: Life scientists’ views of accountability. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 762–767.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research of Human Research Ethics, 1, 51–66.
Maxwell, J. C. (2003). There’s no such thing as “Business” ethics. New York: Center Street.
Miller, S., & Selgelid, M. J. (2007). Ethical and philosophical considerations of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 523–580.
Mitcham, C. (2003). Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 273–290.
NRC. (2011). Challenges and opportunities for education about dual-use issues in the life sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NSABB. (2006). Globalization, biosecurity and the future of the life sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pellegrino, E. D. (2007). Professing medicine, virtue based ethics and the retrieval of professionalism. In R. L. Walker & P. J. Ivanhoe (Eds.), Working virtue: Virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rappert, B. (2007). Education for the life sciences: Choices and challenges. In B. Rappert & C. McLeish (Eds.), A web of prevention. London: Earthscan.
Rappert, B., McLeish, C. (Eds.) (2007b). A web of prevention. Biological weapons, life sciences and the governance of research. London, Earthscan.
Sture, J. (2010). Private morals and public ethics: Cultural aspects of moral development and ethical learning in the scientific context. Canberra, Australia: Promoting Dual-Use Ethics Workshop.
Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 195–230.
Treviño, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378–385.
WHO. (2004). Laboratory biosafety manual. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Prof Brian Rappert and Dr Mariana Wilson-Kovacs for their valuable comments on the manuscript, as well as Dr Brian Balmer for additional advice. The fieldwork presented in this paper was sponsored by a Grant from the Wellcome Trust.
Conflict of interest
There is no known conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bezuidenhout, L. Ethics in the Minutiae: Examining the Role of the Physical Laboratory Environment in Ethical Discourse. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 51–73 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9506-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9506-8