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 twotiered: 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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 762-767 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of Medical Ethics |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue number | 12 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 2009 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health Policy
- Health(social science)
- Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Cite this
The "how" and "whys" of research : Life scientists' views of accountability. / Ladd, J. M.; Lappé, M. D.; McCormick, J. B.; Boyce, A. M.; Cho, M. K.
In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 35, No. 12, 12.2009, p. 762-767.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The "how" and "whys" of research
T2 - Life scientists' views of accountability
AU - Ladd, J. M.
AU - Lappé, M. D.
AU - McCormick, J. B.
AU - Boyce, A. M.
AU - Cho, M. K.
PY - 2009/12
Y1 - 2009/12
N2 - 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 twotiered: 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.
AB - 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 twotiered: 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=72449140999&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=72449140999&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/jme.2009.031781
DO - 10.1136/jme.2009.031781
M3 - Article
VL - 35
SP - 762
EP - 767
JO - Journal of Medical Ethics
JF - Journal of Medical Ethics
SN - 0306-6800
IS - 12
ER -