Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Six domains of research ethics

A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research

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

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide a simple yet comprehensive organizing scheme for the responsible conduct of research (RCR). The heuristic offered here should prove helpful in research ethics education, where the many and heterogeneous elements of RCR can be bewildering, as well as research into research integrity and efforts to form RCR policy and regulations. The six domains are scientific integrity, collegiality, protection of human subjects, animal welfare, institutional integrity, and social responsibility.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Office of Research Integrity (2001) PHS Policy on Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Available online at http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/rcrcontents.asp.

  2. Pimple, K.D. (2000) Letter Commenting on the “Proposed PHS Policy on Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR).” Avariable online at http://php.indiana.edu/~pimple/rcrpolicy.pdf.

  3. Office of Research Integrity (2001) Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Education. Available online at http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/congressionalconcerns.asp.

  4. Pimple, K.D. (1998) Contexts for Teaching Research Ethics, Trends 5: 5–8. Available online at http://poynter.indiana.edu/tre5-2.html.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Steneck, N.H. (2002) Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded Research, in Steneck, N. H. & Scheetz, M.D., eds. Investigating Research Integrity: Proceedings of the First ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity, Office of Research Integrity, pp. 1–16. Available online at http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/publications/rcri.html.

  6. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979) Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (The Belmont Report). Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Available online at http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm.

  7. Guston, D.H. (1999) Changing Explanatory Frameworks in the US Government’s Attempt to Define Research Misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Office of Science and Technology Policy (2000) Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. Federal Register 65: 76260–76264. Available online at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_registerdocid=fr06de00-72.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Merton, R.K. (1973 [1942]) The Normative Structure of Science, in Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–278.

  10. Wilcox, L.J. (1998) Authorship: The Coin of the Realm, the Source of Complaints, Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 216–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academies (1992) Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Vol. 1, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Public Health Service (1989) Responsibilities of Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing with and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science, Federal Register 54: 32446–32451.

    Google Scholar 

  13. National Science Foundation (1991) Misconduct in Science and Engineering, Federal Register 56: 22286–22290.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Commission on Research Integrity (1995) Integrity and Misconduct in Research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. Available online at http://www.faseb.org/opar/cri.html.

  15. Langmuir, I. (transcribed and ed., Robert N. Hall) Pathological Science, Physics Today 42 (Oct. 1989): 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Carroll, R.T. (2000) Pathological Science. Available online at http://skepdic.com/pathosc.html.

  17. Kovac, J. (1996) Scientific Ethics in Chemical Education, Journal of Chemical Education 73: 926–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barden, L.M., Frase, P.A., & Kovac, J. (1997) Teaching Scientific Ethics: A Case Studies Approach, The American Biology Teacher 59: 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth D. Pimple Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pimple, K.D. Six domains of research ethics. SCI ENG ETHICS 8, 191–205 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0018-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0018-1

Keywords

Navigation