David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):273-290 (2003)
To enlarge the discussion of scientific responsibility for research integrity, this paper offers two historico-philosophical observations. First, in the broad history of ideas, modern ethics replaces social role responsibility with appeals to abstract principles; by contrast, discussions within the scientific community of responsibility for research integrity constitute a rediscovery of the continuing vitality of role responsibility. This is a rediscovery from which philosophy itself may benefit. Second, within the context of scientists’ concerns, the idea of role responsibility has undergone significant evolution from “collective responsibility” to the notion of responsibility resting with a “trans-scientific community.” Further challenges nevertheless remain in order to relate scientific role responsibility for scientific integrity to the relationship between science and society. To promote a notion of integrity not just in science but in the science-society relationship, it may be useful to think in terms of a “co-responsibility” for scientific integrity.
|Keywords||responsibility role responsibility role morality co-responsibility research integrity scientific responsibility|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Louise Bezuidenhout (2013). Moving Life Science Ethics Debates Beyond National Borders: Some Empirical Observations. Science and Engineering Ethics:1-23.
Wha-Chul Son (2008). Philosophy of Technology and Macro-Ethics in Engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):405-415.
Katinka Waelbers (2009). Technological Delegation: Responsibility for the Unintended. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):51-68.
Philip Boucher (2011). What Next After Determinism in the Ontology of Technology? Distributing Responsibility in the Biofuel Debate. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):525-538.
Daan Schuurbiers, Patricia Osseweijer & Julian Kinderlerer (2009). Implementing the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice—a Case Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (2):213-231.
Similar books and articles
Nancy L. Jones (2007). A Code of Ethics for the Life Sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1):25-43.
E. Mamchur (1990). Is There an Ivory Tower in Reality? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):101 – 111.
Jennifer Marshall, The Development of Contemporary Medical Genetics Research Models and the Need for Scientific Responsibility.
Melissa S. Anderson & Joseph B. Shultz (2003). The Role of Scientific Associations in Promoting Research Integrity and Deterring Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):269-272.
Felice J. Levine & Joyce M. Iutcovich (2003). Challenges in Studying the Effects of Scientific Societies on Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):257-268.
Margot Iverson, Mark S. Frankel & Sanyin Siang (2003). Scientific Societies and Research Integrity: What Are They Doing and How Well Are They Doing It? Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):141-158.
Joan McGregor & Jack Crittenden (eds.) (2000). Values, Ethics and Personal Responsibility. Arizona Town Hall.
Simon Robinson (2009). The Nature of Responsibility in a Professional Setting. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1):11 - 19.
Addeane S. Caelleigh (2003). Roles for Scientific Societies in Promoting Integrity in Publication Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):221-241.
Kenneth D. Pimple (2002). Six Domains of Research Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):191-205.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #306,410 of 1,089,053 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?