The "how" and "whys" of research

Life scientists' views of accountability

J. M. Ladd, M. D. Lappé, J. B. McCormick, A. M. Boyce, M. K. Cho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)762-767
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Volume35
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Social Responsibility
responsibility
Research
Research Personnel
science
Publications
Motivation
Peer Review
Organized Financing
funding
Focus Groups
academic career
peer review
institutional change
Accountability
Interviews
Students
community
grant
graduate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Health(social science)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Cite this

Ladd, J. M., Lappé, M. D., McCormick, J. B., Boyce, A. M., & Cho, M. K. (2009). The "how" and "whys" of research: Life scientists' views of accountability. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(12), 762-767. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.031781

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 journalArticle

Ladd, JM, Lappé, MD, McCormick, JB, Boyce, AM & Cho, MK 2009, 'The "how" and "whys" of research: Life scientists' views of accountability', Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 762-767. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.031781
Ladd, J. M. ; Lappé, M. D. ; McCormick, J. B. ; Boyce, A. M. ; Cho, M. K. / The "how" and "whys" of research : Life scientists' views of accountability. In: Journal of Medical Ethics. 2009 ; Vol. 35, No. 12. pp. 762-767.
@article{a1fbf92cb55f47008307d0f548f74b4c,
title = "The {"}how{"} and {"}whys{"} of research: Life scientists' views of accountability",
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.",
author = "Ladd, {J. M.} and Lapp{\'e}, {M. D.} and McCormick, {J. B.} and Boyce, {A. M.} and Cho, {M. K.}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1136/jme.2009.031781",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "762--767",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

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 -