David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):395-406 (2009)
To be a functional alternative to government regulation, self-regulation of science must be credible to both scientists and the public, accountable, ethical, and effective. According to some, serious problems continue in research ethics in the United States despite a rich history of proposed self-regulatory standards and oversight devices. Successful efforts at self-regulation in stem cell research contrast with unsuccessful efforts in research ethics, particularly conflicts of interest. Part of the cause for a lack of success in self-regulation is fragmented, disconnected oversight, and failure to embody genuine scientific and public consensus. To be accountable, credible and effective, self-regulation must be inclusive and multidisciplinary, publicly engaged, sufficiently disinterested, operationally integrated with institutional goals, and must implement a genuine consensus among scientists and the public. The mechanisms of self-regulation must be sufficiently broad in their oversight, and interconnected with other institutional forces and actors, that they do not create fragmented solutions.
|Keywords||Research ethics Conflicts of interest Self-regulation Stem cells ESCROs Responsible conduct of research Misconduct|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Gary E. Marchant & Lynda L. Pope (2009). The Problems with Forbidding Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):375-394.
Patrick L. Taylor (2005). The Gap Between Law and Ethics in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Overcoming the Effect of U.S. Federal Policy on Research Advances and Public Benefit. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (4):589-616.
Greg Koski, Jessica Aungst, Joel Kupersmith, Kenneth Getz & David Rimoin (2005). Cooperative Research Ethics Review Boards: A Win-Win Solution? IRB: Ethics & Human Research 27 (3).
Sheila Jasanoff (2007). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton Univ Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Gary E. Marchant & Stephanie J. Bird (2009). Editors' Overview: Forbidding Science? [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):263-269.
Similar books and articles
Mark R. Wicclair & Michael DeVita (2004). Oversight of Research Involving the Dead. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (2):143-164.
Norman E. Bowie & Karim Jamal (2006). Privacy Rights on the Internet: Self-Regulation or Government Regulation? Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (3):323-342.
Cynthia B. Cohen Peter J. Cohen (2010). International Stem Cell Tourism and the Need for Effective Regulation: Part II: Developing Sound Oversight Measures and Effective Patient Support. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (3):207-230.
Rui Nunes, Cristina Brandão & Guilhermina Rego (2011). Public Accountability and Sunshine Healthcare Regulation. Health Care Analysis 19 (4):352-364.
Jack High (1993). Self‐Interest and Responsive Regulation. Critical Review 7 (2-3):181-192.
Christina Lux (2002). Conflicts of Interest in Germany: A Legal Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):327-336.
B. Frydman, L. Hennebel & Gregory Lewkowicz, Public Strategies for Internet Co-Regulation in the United States, Europe and China.
Added to index2009-04-20
Total downloads14 ( #264,976 of 1,911,908 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #182,520 of 1,911,908 )
How can I increase my downloads?