In one of the first surveys of research integrity (RI) standards, the European Science Foundation concluded that there was a 'wide range of approaches' across European countries and that there was a need for 'harmonized standards across Europe'. 1 This was the original rationale for the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC), which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2017.Harmonization does not mean uniformity. The harmonization the ECoC aimed to provide was that of a reference point for a 'common understanding of the demands of research integrity'. 2 Such a common understanding was intended to be compatible with national-level differences: 'However, unlike the fundamental values of scientific integrity and the violation thereof, which have a universal character, [poor and inappropriate] practices 3 may be subject to different national traditions, legislative regulations or institutional provisions '. 4 Similarly, the 2017 ECoC explicitly aims to be a reference point that 'allows for local or national differences in its implementation'. 5 We call this the (European) core versus national periphery model of harmonization: the 'core' aspects of RI-the principles, the good practices, and the definition of misconduct-must be specified by Europe-wide standards set by the ECoC, but the 'peripheral' aspects-i.e. what counts as merely a questionable research practice may vary from country to country.In this article we will seek to map patterns of divergence and convergence across national-level codes and guidelines in Europe,
Some of the most significant policy responses to cases of fraudulent and questionable conduct by scientists have been to strengthen professionalism among scientists, whether by codes of conduct, integrity boards, or mandatory research integrity training programs. Yet there has been little systematic discussion about what professionalism in scientific research should mean. In this paper I draw on the sociology of the professions and on data comparing codes of conduct in science to those in the professions, in order to examine what precisely the model of professionalism implies for scientific research. I argue that professionalism, more than any other single organizational logic, is appropriate for scientific research, and that codes of conduct for scientists should strengthen statements concerning scientific autonomy and competence, as well as the scientific service ideal.
Distrust in scientific experts can be surprisingly stubborn, persisting despite evidence supporting the experts' views, demonstrations of their competence, or displays of good will. This stubborn distrust is often viewed as a manifestation of irrationality. By contrast, this article proposes a logic of "status distrust": low-status individuals are objectively vulnerable to collective decision-making, and can justifiably distrust high-status scientific experts if they are not confident that the experts do not have their best interests at heart. In phenomena of status distrust, social status is thus an indicator of distrust, and this has wider implications for the literatures on trust in science and on expert communication.
The arguably dominant view on the ethics of cognitive enhancement (CE) is that it is primarily beholden to the principle of autonomy (e.g. Harris 2007; Agar 2005), sometimes supplemented with justice-related considerations (Buchanan 2011). The hard external constraints on enhancement -whether 'sanctity', or avoiding to 'play God', and being open to 'givenness' -seem to have more or less faded from view, both in the academic communities as well as among the public (Ranisch and Ehni 2020).Against this backdrop, the results found by Dinh et al. are all the more surprising. They tested for ethical acceptability while varying contextual factors such as use by peers, endorsement by authority figures, and the presence of competition. All these contextual factors undermine the exercise of autonomy, at least in the sense that the enhancee could not claim with full justification that their choices are entirely "their own". Also the importance of the enhancee's social role (student/athlete vs. employee) seems to be at odds with the principle of autonomy, where all that matters is the nature of personal choices. Yet, oddly, only the presence of a competitive environment negatively impacts ethical acceptability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with đź’™ for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.