Suchergebnisse

Modern bioethics was born in the West and thus reflects, not surprisingly, the traditions of Western moral philosophy and political and social theory. When the work of bioethics was confined to the West, this background of socio-political theory and moral tradition posed few problems, but as bioethics has moved into other cultures - inside and outside of the Western world - it has become an agent of moral imperialism. We describe the moral imperialism of bioethics, discuss its dangers, and suggest that global bioethics will succeed only to the extent that it is local.

ABSTRACTContrary to the revised Common Rule, and contrary to the views of many bioethicists and researchers, we argue that broad consent should be sought for anticipated later research uses of deidentified biospecimens and health information collected during medical care. Individuals differ in the kinds of risk they find concerning and in their willingness to permit use of their biospecimens for future research. For this reason, asking their permission for unspecified research uses is a fundamental expression of respect for them as persons and should be done absent some compelling moral consideration to the contrary. We examine three moral considerations and argue that each of them fails: that there is a duty of easy rescue binding on all, that seeking consent creates a selection bias that undermines the validity of biospecimen research, and that seeking and documenting consent will be prohibitively expensive.

This article discusses current ethical issues associated with childbirth in the United States. It provides a review of moral problems and ethical choices made by parents and health-care professionals during the prenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum periods. Ethical issues are identified and framed through a "naturalized bioethics" approach, as recommended by Margaret Walker and her colleagues, Hilde Lindemann and Marian Verkerk. This approach critiques traditional bioethics and gives attention to everyday ethics and the social, economic, and political context within which ethical problems exist. This approach provides the reader with the tools needed to critically assess the way ethical problems are defined and resolved.

Ethnographers have long been unhappy with the review of their research proposals by institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, we offer a sociological view of the problems associated with prospective IRB review of ethnographic research. Compared with researchers in other fields, social scientists have been less willing to accommodate themselves to IRB oversight; we identify the reasons for this reluctance, and in an effort to promote such accommodation, we suggest several steps to reduce the frustration associated with IRB review of ethnographic research. We conclude by encouraging ethnographers to be alert to the ways the procedural and bureaucratic demands of IRBs can displace their efforts to solve the serious ethical dilemmas posed by ethnography.

Ethnographers have long been unhappy with the review of their research proposals by institutional review hoards (IRBs). In this article, we offer a sociological view of the problems associated with prospective IRB review of ethnographic research. Compared with researchers in other fields, social scientists have been less willing to accommodate themselves to IRB oversight; we identify the reasons for this reluctance, & in an effort to promote such accommodation, we suggest several steps to reduce the frustration associated with IRB review of ethnographic research. We conclude by encouraging ethnographers to be alert to the ways the procedural & bureaucratic demands of IRBs can displace their efforts to solve the serious ethical dilemmas posed by ethnography. 29 References. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2004 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]

Norms of behavior in scientific research represent ideals to which most scientists subscribe. Our analysis of the extent of dissonance between these widely espoused ideals and scientists' perceptions of their own and others' behavior is based on survey responses from 3,247 mid- and early-career scientists who had research funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. We found substantial normative dissonance, particularly between espoused ideals and respondents' perceptions of other scientists' typical behavior. Also, respondents on average saw other scientists' behavior as more counternormative than normative. Scientists' views of their fields as cooperative or competitive were associated with their normative perspectives, with competitive fields showing more counternormative behavior. The high levels of normative dissonance documented here represent a persistent source of stress in science.

Those concerned with protecting the integrity of science generally focus on the serious but rare infractions of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). While the violations of FFP are clear threats to the quality of scientific work and public trust in science, are they the behaviors that researchers themselves find most troubling? Noticing that scientists seldom are asked to report their perceptions of the behaviors that pose problems for the enterprise of science, we conducted six focus groups with researchers from major research universities. A total of 51 scientists participated in our focus-group discussions, which lasted from 1.5 to 2 hours each. We found that while researchers were aware of the problems of FFP, in their eyes misconduct generally is associated with more mundane, everyday problems in the work environment. These more common problems fall into four categories: The meaning of data, the rules of science, life with colleagues, and the pressures of production in science. Focus on the "normal misbehaviors" that are part of the ordinary life of researchers allows us to see the way the organization of science generates both compliance and deviance from ethical norms.

The professional behavior of scientists, for good or ill, is likely associated with their perceptions of whether they are treated fairly in their work environments, including their academic department and university and by relevant regulatory bodies. These relationships may also be influenced by their own personal characteristics, such as being overcommitted to their work, and by the interactions between these factors. Theory also suggests that such associations may be mediated by negative or positive affect. We examined these issues using data from a national, mail-based survey administered in 2006 and 2007 to 5,000 randomly selected faculty from biomedical and social science departments at 50 top-tier research universities in the United States. We found that perceptions of justice in one's workplace (organizational justice) are positively associated with self-report of "ideal" behaviors and negatively associated with self-report of misbehavior and misconduct. By contrast, researchers who perceive that they are being unfairly treated are less likely to report engaging in "ideal" behaviors and more likely to report misbehavior and misconduct. Overcommitment to one's work is also associated with negative affect and interacts with perceptions of unfair treatment in ways that are associated with higher self-report of misbehavior. Thus, perceptions of fair treatment in the work environment appear to play important roles in fostering—or undermining—research integrity.