David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (4):597-613 (2004)
What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks? The work of American toxic-exposure epidemiologists can attract media coverage and lead the public to change health practices, initiate lawsuits, or take other steps a study’s authors might consider unwarranted. This paper, reporting data from 61 semi-structured interviews with U.S. toxic-exposure epidemiologists, examines whether such possibilities shaped epidemiologists’ selection of journals for potentially sensitive papers. Respondents manifested strong support for the norm of scientific openness, but a significant minority had or would/might, given the right circumstances, publish sensitive data in less visible journals, so as to prevent unwanted media or public attention. Often, even those advocating such limited “burial” upheld openness, claiming that less visible publication allowed them to avoid totally withholding the data from publication. However, 15% of the sample had or would, for the most sensitive types of data, withhold publication altogether. Rather than respondents explaining their actions in terms of an expected split between “pure science” and “social advocacy” models, even those publishing in the more visible journals often described their actions in terms of their “responsibility”. Several practical limitations (particularly involving broader access to scientific literature via the Internet) of the strategy of burial are discussed, and some recommendations are offered for scientists, the media, and the public.
|Keywords||publication scientist responsibility ethics epidemiology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Joan E. Sieber (1991). Openness in the Social Sciences: Sharing Data. Ethics and Behavior 1 (2):69 – 86.
Wilhelm Ott (2008). Digital Publishing: Tools and Products. [REVIEW] Poiesis and Praxis 5 (2):81-112.
William Bechtel (1994). Deciding on the Data: Epistemological Problems Surrounding Instruments and Research Techniques in Cell Biology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:167 - 178.
Berna Arda (2012). Publication Ethics From the Perspective of PhD Students of Health Sciences: A Limited Experience. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):213-222.
P. Langat, D. Pisartchik, D. Silva, C. Bernard, K. Olsen, M. Smith, S. Sahni & R. Upshur (2011). Is There a Duty to Share? Ethics of Sharing Research Data in the Context of Public Health Emergencies. Public Health Ethics 4 (1):4-11.
Boyce Rensberger (2000). Why Scientists Should Cooperate with Journalists. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4):549-552.
Gitte Meyer & Peter Sandøe (2012). Going Public: Good Scientific Conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):173-197.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2009). First-Person Data, Publicity and Self-Measurement. Philosophers' Imprint 9 (9):1-16.
Tom Jefferson (1998). Redundant Publication in Biomedical Sciences: Scientific Misconduct or Necessity? [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (2):135-140.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #178,728 of 1,088,378 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,378 )
How can I increase my downloads?