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. (shrink)

Pascal’s paper indicates how far we have come. Now as then, however, there is a need to reflect from outside the cocoon of our agencies, institutions, and disciplines to behold the enterprise that shapes both our behavior and our interpretations of it. For the boundary separating propriety from impropriety continues to move. Just as science, and the knowledge it begets, continues to evolve, so must our collective standards. The lessons of time include this: ORI or biomedical research is no island; (...) each is connected to a body of practitioners who are accountable to a society that is ever-more skeptical of expert knowledge and the institutions entrusted with its development. We are participants in a process of continuous improvement , not occupants of a state of grace. For the good of the enterprise we cherish, it is best that we all remember that. (shrink)

This article asserts that graduate study should include preparation for participation in the process of self-regulation to assure the responsible conduct of research in the scientific community. This article outlines the various ways in which doctoral study can incorporate such preparation. These suggested ways include the inculcation of general attitudes and values about professional self-regulation, various ways doctoral study can be configured so that future scientists are prepared to participate in the deterrence, detection and sanctioning of scientific wrongdoing. The stages (...) of doctoral study in the United States and their relevance to preparation for self-regulations are also discussed. Recommendations regarding an extended role for faculty advisors, graduate assistantships, coursework and departmental policies and activities are also advanced. (shrink)

From a national U.S. sample of senior academic biochemists, ninety-four indicated that they personally knew of an incident of scientific wrongdoing. Among these individuals, less formal actions against an offending individual were endorsed when either actions were believed to have the potential to publicly embarrass the offending individual, or the actions might adversely affect the professional career of the whistleblower. These relationships remain significant after controlling for professional status, career age, and current level of formal departmental administrative responsibility. Study limitations (...) and implications are discussed. (shrink)