<< Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Bibliogrphy (page 7 of 10) Kempner, J., C. S. Perlis, et al. (2005). "ETHICS: Forbidden Knowledge." Science 307(5711): 854-.       A discussion of new social and political constraints placed on certain research subject areas. The article focuses on studies that seek to find out how research limitations affect the performance and opinion of scientists. Although most agreed that social constraints offered important protection for patients, many scientists felt uncomfortable with policy-makers setting limitations on their research. The article addresses the responsibility of investigators to maintain social norms while attempting to produce novel research. Kennedy, D. (2001). "Editorial: "Accepted Community Standards"." Science 291(5505): 789.       This editorial deals with the concept that readership should have access to all the materials necessary to replicate a paper should they be skilled enough to do it. However, as science has become more proprietary and complex there has been movement away from this standard. He reiterates the standard and discusses exceptions. Kennedy, D. (2003). "Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems." Science 301(5634): 733.       The author of this editorial deals with the problem of identifying the person among many authors who was responsible for problems in a paper and with the problem of promotion committees deciding whether an author made a critical contribution or otherwise. He suggests that authors be asked to identify their role in each paper. Korenman, S. G., R. Berk, et al. (1998). "Evaluation of the Research Norms of Scientists and Administrators Responsible for Academic Research Integrity." JAMA 279(1): 41-47.       This study used a sophisticated scenario matrix method with 12 scenarios in four domains of research ethics to examine the professional norms of basic molecular and cellular biologists and institutional representatives to whom the were responsible. There was a 69% response rate. The investigators found that both groups expressed a high degree of research integrity and there was a hierarchy of research malfeasance with fabrication and plagiarism on the top. While scientists and institutional representatives expressed similar normative values, they differed significantly in their approaches to an unethical act. Leshner, A. I. (2005). "Where Science Meets Society." Science 307(5711): 815-.       This article examines the clash between social/moral value-systems and advances in research. It attempts to examine ethical boundaries to scientific research within the framework of modern society; however, the article does not make a decisive conclusion on the value of ethical limitations on research. Madsen, S. M., M. R. Mirza, et al. (2002). "Attitudes Towards Clinical Research Amongst Participants And Nonparticipants." Journal of Internal Medicine 251(2): 156-168.       This Danish study showed that subjects and potential subjects have a positive attitude toward research. Those entering studies do it for both personal and altruistic reasons and those who refuse to participate were concerned about the unknown and about randomization. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2002.00949.x Marshall, E. (2002). "DATA SHARING: Clear-Cut Publication Rules Prove Elusive." Science 295(5560): 1625.       This comments on problems associated with producing a uniform code on the ethics of publishing as discovered at a meeting for that purpose. Again it was associated with the issues surrounding data sharing. May, R. M. (2001). "Science and Society." Science 292(5519): 1021.       He discusses a number of ways in which society is puzzled and disappointed by science, especially since science usually has many voices with different agendas in issues of interest to the public. An example is how to handle bovine spongioform encephalopathy in England. Merton, R. (1942). "A note on Science and Democracy." J Legal and Political Sociol 1: 115-126.      This little classic laid out the underlying responsibilities of scientists, to seek the truth with objectivity, to share, and to self-govern. Michels, R. (1999). "Are Research Ethics Bad for Our Mental Health?" N Engl J Med 340(18): 1427-1430.       The author argues that many important mental health studies cannot be done because of the rules requiring informed consent. He points out the importance of studying the most serious psychiatric illnesses and the difficulty getting approval for the research. This continues to be a minority viewpoint. Miller, F. G. and D. L. Rosenstein (2003). "The Therapeutic Orientation to Clinical Trials." N Engl J Med 348(14): 1383-1386.       Considers the ethical differences between clinical care and clinical research and argues that they should be more separated. Discusses in relation to the "Therapeutic misconception." Excellent Bibliography. << 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)