Scientific self-regulation—so good, how can it fail?

Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):395-406 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-04-20

Downloads
30 (#456,882)

6 months
2 (#658,848)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Patrick Taylor
Brigham Young University

Citations of this work

Professionalism in Science: Competence, Autonomy, and Service.Hugh Desmond - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (3):1287-1313.
Editors' Overview: Forbidding Science? [REVIEW]Gary E. Marchant & Stephanie J. Bird - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):263-269.

Add more citations