Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Biomedical Research

Debates on Trust, Robustness, and Relevance

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity

Abstract

Because it is directly implicated in major social issues, biomedical research is a paradigmatic field for working in ethics to cross-reference epistemic, social, and political issues. This chapter shows that the ethics and scientific integrity of biomedical research has grasped this challenge by placing the transversal concern of trust at the heart of its approach. This question of trust is put into perspective with that of trustworthiness, which is closely linked to it, and which is described as a way of thinking together with the robustness of methods, evidence, results, and the social, ethical, and contextual relevance of trade-offs about them. In a context of increasing media coverage of scientific misconduct and profound changes in the scientific landscape, the ethics of biomedical research thus invites us to take up the complex question of the links between trust and trustworthiness.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1979) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Border R, Smolen A, Corley RP et al (2019) Imputation of behavioral candidate gene repeat variants in 486,551 publicly-available UK Biobank individuals. Eur J Hum Genet 27(6):963–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N (2007) Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties 2(1):11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright N, Stegenga J (2011) A theory of evidence for evidence-based policy. In: Dawid AP, Twining W, Vasilaki M (eds) Evidence, inference and enquiry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 291–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H (2002) A Brief History of Research Synthesis. Evaluation & the Health Professions 25 (1):12–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatfield K, Biernacki O, Schroeder D et al (2018) Research with, not about, communities. Ethical guidance towards empowerment in collaborative research. Report for the TRUST project. http://trust-project.eu/

  • Chneiweiss H, Hirsch F, Montoliu L et al (2017) Fostering responsible research with genome editing technologies: a European perspective. Transgenic Res 26(5):709–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane AL (1971) Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen AM, Stavri PZ, Hersh WR (2004) A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of evidence-based medicine. Int J Med Inform 73(1):35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin SS, Barker A, Dawson A (2012) Ethics and scientific integrity in public health, epidemiological and clinical research. Public Health Rev 34(1):71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coutellec L (2015) For a political philosophy of the sciences implicated. Values, goals, practices. Ecol Pol 2(51):15–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly J (2005) Evidence-based medicine and the search for a science of clinical care. University of California Press and Milbank Memorial Fund, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas H (2000) Inductive risk and values in science. Philos Sci 67(4):559–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas H (2009) Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott K (2011) Is a little pollution good for you? Incorporating societal values in environmental research. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott K, McKaughan D (2014) Nonepistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philos Sci 81(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt HT (1986) The foundations of bioethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein S (1996) Impure science. Aids, activism and the politics of knowledge. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Eronen MI (2015) Robustness and reality. Synthese 192(12):3961–3977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N (2014) Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3725

  • Hardin R (1996) Trustworthiness. Ethics 107(1):26–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin R (2002) Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris R (2017) Rigor Mortis. How sloppy science creates worthless cures, crushes hope, and wastes billions. Basic books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermant E, Solhdju S (2015) The Dingdingdingdong bet co-produce new natural stories of Huntington’s disease with and for its users. Ecol Pol 2(51):65–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks DJ (2014) A new direction for science and values. Synthese 191(14):3271–3295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks DJ, Wouters P, Waltman L et al (2015) Bibliometrics: the Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520(7548):429–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intemann K (2015) Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling. Eur J Philos Sci 5(2):217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8):e124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JP (2012) Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspect Psychol Sci 7(6):645–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (1993) Innovation and integrity in biomedical research. Acad Med 68(9):91–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SH, Longino H, Waters K (eds) (2006) Scientific pluralism. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science 19. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly MP, Heath I, Howick J, Greenhalgh T (2015) The importance of values in evidence-based medicine. BMC Med Ethics 16(1):69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerasidou A (2017) Trust me, I’m a researcher!: the role of trust in biomedical research. Med Health Care Philos 20(1):43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P (2001) Science, truth and democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey H (2015) Agroecology: science and values of social justice, democracy and sustainability. Ecol Pol 2(51):27–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey H (2016) Science, respect for nature, and human well-being: democratic values and the responsibilities of scientists today. Found Sci 21(1):51–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli S (2014) What difference does quantity make? On the epistemology of big data in biology. Big Data Soc 1(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. In: Sober E (ed) Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology, 1st edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd EA (2015) Model robustness as a confirmatory virtue: the case of climate science. Stud Hist Phil Sci A 49:58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino H (1990) Science as social knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino H (2002) The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig D (2015) Ontological choices and the value-free ideal. Erkenntnis 6:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I et al (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383(9912):101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martensen R (2001) The history of bioethics: an essay review. J Hist Med Allied Sci 56(2):168–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastroianni AC (2008) Sustaining public trust: falling short in the protection of human research participants. Hastings Cent Rep 38(3):8–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E (1982) Values in science. PSA Proc Bienn Meet Philos Sci Assoc (4):3–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Mebius A (2014) Corroborating evidence-based medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 20(6):915–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milcu A, Puga-Freitas R, Ellison AM et al (2018) Genotypic variability enhances the reproducibility of an ecological study. Nat Ecol Evol 2(2):279–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM et al (2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

  • Nordmann A (2019) The ties that bind: collective experimentation and participatory design as paradigms for responsible innovation. In: von Schomberg R, Hankins J (eds) International handbook on responsible innovation: a global resource. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 181–193

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Pestre D, Schmidt-Aßmann E et al (2010) The public nature of science under assault. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker WS, Winsberg E (2018) Values and evidence: how models make a difference. Eur J Philos Sci 8(1):125–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pupovac V, Fanelli D (2015) Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (5):1331–1352

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich WT (ed) (1978) The encyclopedia of bioethics, vol 1. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik DB, Shamoo AE (2011) The Singapore statement on research integrity. Account Res 18(2):71–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter SH, Garner JP, Würbel H (2009) Environmental standardization: cure or cause of poor reproducibility in animal experiments? Nat Methods 6(4):257–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur P (1992) Oneself as another. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruphy S (2017) Scientific pluralism reconsidered: a new approach to the (dis)unity of science. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder SA (2018) Democratic values: a better foundation for public trust in science. Br J Philos Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz023

  • Soler L, Trizio E, Nickles T et al (eds) (2012) Characterizing the robustness of science: after the practice turn in the philosophy of science. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon M (2005) Making medical knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon M (2006) Norms of epistemic diversity. Episteme 3(1–2):23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegenga J (2009) Robustness, discordance, and relevance. Philos Sci 76(5):650–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegenga J (2019) Medical nihilism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, Goulson D, Potts SG et al (2011) Quantifying the impact and relevance of scientific research. PLoS One 6(11):e27537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson PR (2010) Causality, mathematical models and statistical association: dismantling evidence-based medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 16(2):267–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varghese J (2018) Influence and prioritization of non-epistemic values in clinical trial designs: a study of Ebola ça Suffit trial. Synthese 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01912-0

  • Wilholt T (2013) Epistemic trust in science. Br J Philos Sci 64(2):233–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis-Owen SA, Turri MG, Munafò MR et al. (2005) The serotonin transporter length polymorphism, neuroticism, and depression: a comprehensive assessment of association. Biol Psychiatry. 58(6):451–456

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (2019) WHO adapts Ebola vaccination strategy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to account for insecurity and community feedback. News release, https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/07-05-2019-who-adapts-ebola-vaccination-strategy-in-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-to-account-for-insecurity-and-community-feedback. Accessed 14 Sept 2019

  • Worrall J (2007) Evidence in medicine and evidence-based medicine. Philos Compass 2(6):981–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall J (2010) Evidence: philosophy of science meets medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 16(2):356–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (2010) Trust and trustworthiness. Philosophia 38(3):615–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarborough M, Sharp RR (2002) Restoring and preserving trust in biomedical research. Acad Med 77(1):8–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarborough M, Nadon R, Karlin DG (2019) Point of view: four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research. Elife. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45261

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Laboratory in Ethics and Epistemology (R2E), CESP, INSERM U1018, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France

    Léo Coutellec

Authors
  1. Léo Coutellec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Léo Coutellec .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chatelaillon Plage, France

    Ron Iphofen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Coutellec, L. (2020). Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Biomedical Research. In: Iphofen, R. (eds) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_36

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation