The “how” and “whys” of research: life scientists’ views of accountability

Jennifer M. Ladd · M. Lappé · Jennifer Blair McCormick · Mildred K. Cho

28 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Medical Ethics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Research, Science, and Academia Academic integrity and plagiarism Health and Medical Research Impacts

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate life scientists' views of accountability and the ethical and societal implications of research. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group and one-on-one interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 45 Stanford University life scientists, including graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty. RESULTS: Two main themes were identified in participants' discussions of accountability: (1) the "how" of science and (2) the "why" of science. The "how" encompassed the internal conduct of research including attributes such as honesty and independence. The "why," or the motivation for conducting research, was two-tiered: first was the desire to positively impact the research community and science itself, and second was an interest in positively impacting the external community, broadly referred to as society. Participants noted that these motivations were influenced by the current systems of publications, grants and funding, thereby supporting a complex notion of boundary-setting between science and non-science. In addition, while all participants recognised the "how" of science and the two tiers of "why," scientists expressed the need to prioritise these domains of accountability. This prioritisation was related to a researcher's position in the academic career trajectory and to the researcher's subsequent "perceived proximity" to scientific or societal concerns. Our findings therefore suggest the need for institutional change to inculcate early-stage researchers with a broader awareness of the implications of their research. The peer review processes for funding and publication could be effective avenues for encouraging scientists to broaden their views of accountability to society.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

References

1990Science as Social Knowledge 2007The Honest Broker 1945Science: The Endless Frontier 1999The science studies reader 1992Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry 1999Science's new social contract with society 1996Frontiers of illusion: science, technology, and the politics of progress 2020Science, the Endless Frontier

Cited by

2015An empirical exploration of scientists’ social responsibilities 2014Policies to increase the social value of science and the scientist satisfaction. An exploratory survey among Harvard bioscientists.2016Increasing the public health potential of basic research and the scientist satisfaction. An international survey of bioscientists

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.