Skip to main content
Log in

Responsible conduct in research

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science is not taken for granted any longer. Society, politics and the media pose critical questions tending to censorship or at least control of science. How does science respond? It cannot exist and develop without freedom, but this does not mean freedom to amass knowledge and apply technological applications at any price and without restrictions. Science should be autonomous, but is not value-free. A distintion is made between external and internal social/ethical problems. The former refer to questions of the social/ethical context and consequences of scientific research, and the latter to the rules of ‘good practice’ and scientific integrity. The role of academies of science, and of associations of such academies (e.g. All European Academies (ALLEA)) in developing codes of good scientific practice and fostering a proper sense of scientific values and standards is further discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wolpert, L. (1999). Is science dangerous?. In: Drenth, P.J.D., J.E. Fenstad & J.D. Schiereck (eds) European science and scientists between freedom and responsibility. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Drenth, P.J.D. (1999). The ethical discussion: main themes and issues. In: Drenth, P.J.D., J.E. Fenstad & J.D. Schiereck (eds), European science and scientists between freedom and responsibility. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Drenth, P.J.D. (2002). International science and fair-play practices, Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McLaren, A. (1999). The ethical dilemma: the living world. In: Drenth, P.J.D., J.E. Fenstad & J.D. Schiereck (eds), European science and scientists between freedom and responsibility. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 101–107.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Deyo, R.A., Psaty, B.M., Simon, G., Wagner, E.H. & Omenn, G.S. (1997), The messenger under attack — intimidation of researchers by special-interest groups. New England Journal of Medicine, 336: 1176–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Drenth, P.J.D. (1999, sec. ed.). Science: where do we draw the line? European Review 7: 239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1995) On being a scientist; responsible conduct in research, Washington D.C.: Nat. Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. European Science Foundation (2002), Good scientific practice in research and scholarship. ESF Policy Briefing.

  9. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie voor Wetenschappen, Verenigde Samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten, Nederlandse Organisatie van Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (2001). Notitie Wetenschappelijke Integriteit: over normen van wetenschappelijk onderzoek en een Landelijk Orgaan voor Wetenschappelijke Integriteit. Amsterdam: KNAW.

    Google Scholar 

  10. ALLEA, KNAW, NWO, VSNU, (2003). Memorandum on scientific integrity. Amsterdam: ALLEA/KNAW.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. J. D. Drenth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drenth, P.J.D. Responsible conduct in research. SCI ENG ETHICS 12, 13–21 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022265

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022265

Keywords

Navigation