<< Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Bibliogrphy (page 5 of 10) Faigman, D. L. (2002). "SCIENCE AND THE LAW: Is Science Different for Lawyers?" Science 297(5580): 339-340.       The author argues that the law is suspicious of the scientific method as a source of expertise. One of the reasons is that in contentious cases the science may not be there, but there is also the underlying theme that probabilistic thinking is difficult for the law. They discuss criteria for credibility of scientific information. Ferber, D. (2004). "Occupational health. Beset by lawsuits, IBM blocks a study that used its data." Science 304(5673): 937-9.      This article deals with internal IBM data that might show an increased mortality rate in certain IBM work categories. The data were not part of a systematic study and, as they were the subject of numerous torts, they refused to allow the data to be utilized and promised a new, proper study. Fine, M. K., L. (1993). "Reflections on Determining Authorship Credit and Authorship Order on Faculty-Student Collaborations." American Psychologist 48(11): 1141-1147.       This think piece focusing on psychology, reviews various kinds of trainee-faculty relationships in performing and reporting research. They indicate that beneficence, justice and paternalism should apply in making the decisions. Flanagin, A., P. B. Fontanarosa, et al. (2002). "Authorship for Research Groups." JAMA 288(24): 3166-3168.       This editorial tries to adopt fair policies for the listing of authors in large multicenter clinical trials. They recognize that it's a tricky matter both to determine who meets authorship criteria and to properly credit those who are not lead authors. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/288/24/3166 Francke, U. (1999). Response to National Bioethics Advisory Commission on the Ethical Issues and Policy Concerns Surrounding Research Using Human Biological Materials. H. T. M. Shapiro, Eric. Meslin.       These authors, officers of the Am. Soc. For Human Genetics comment very negatively on the proposals of the NBAC regarding the use of human biological materials. The most powerful objections are to the absolute requirement for anonymization and for revisiting donors to get permission to use their materials for new projects. They claim it will bring certain types of science to a halt. Garland, B. (2004). "Neuroscience and the Law." Professional Ethics Report 17(1).       This reports on a conference that eventually became a book relating primarily to 4 questions. How will ability to predict behavior alter the law? How will scientific lie detection affect testifying witnesses? How could new neurological knowledge affect discrimination? What are the risks and benefits of brain modification for enhancement? These questions address key ethical issues including "free will" and responsibility for behavior. Goodman, Ellen (2001). Medicine needs more "chumps". Boston Globe. Boston, MA. March 1, 2001.       In her way she points out that those who did not benefit financially from their discoveries were, perhaps, better off and more respected than those who struggle to make the last entrepreneurial dollar from their scientific achievements. Goodwin, F. M., A. (1999). "Scientists in Bunkers: How Appeasement of "Animal Rights" Acitivism Has Failed." The Dana Forum on Brain Science 1(2): 50-62.       These investigators argue that appeasing animal rights activists only encourages them to demand more and more. They will never be satisfied. The suggestion is pushing back. Gray, M. L. and J. V. Bonventre (2002). "Training PhD researchers to translate science to clinical medicine: Closing the gap from the other side." Nat Med 8(5): 433.       The authors suggest that training basic scientists to have a more practical bent and become interested in translational medicine will more discoveries to the pharmacopiea Grinnell, F. (1999). "Ambiguity, trust, and the responsible conduct of research." Sci Eng Ethics 5(2): 205-14.       Ambiguity associated with everyday practice of science has made it difficult to reach a consensus on how to define misconduct in science. This essay outlines some of the important ambiguities of practice such as distinguishing data from noise, deciding whether results falsify a hypothesis, and converting research into research publications. The problem of ambiguity is further compounded by the prior intellectual commitments inherent in choosing problems and in dealing with the skepticism of one's colleagues. To do this responsibly, the underlying theme had to be trust. However, in today's environment trust had to be earned by being a responsible investigator. This paper raises lots of issues distinguishing the reality of scientific endeavor from the theoretical. << Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Chapter 1 Quick Links The Ethical Basis of RCRH The Nature of Science Research Integrity Professionalism in Science Practical Elements of Responsible Research Conduct Cases Bibliography Chapter 1 Download (PDF)