Good practice in medicine and biology: scientific integrity needs global bioethics

Abstract

We consider scientific integrity to constitute a new theory of morality of science, in a very specific deontological sense. Indeed, at least in practice, scientific integrity extends beyond scientific concerns, seeking to develop specific moral duties and/or procedures based on general moral values and/or standards, leading to common moral frameworks for usual scientific practices. This is, of course, necessary. Contemporary history has shown us only too well that usual scientific practices need common moral frameworks, especially in medicine and biology. However, like scientific practices, and medical and biological practices in particular, the persistence of certain moral values and/or standards and the priority attributed to them, can change significantly, due to changes in society, people, the times and/or environments, and they may be under strong tension. We therefore believe that a new theory of ethics of science, in a very specific teleological sense, may be required in this case, particularly in medicine and biology, in addition to scientific integrity. This ethical theory, through research, professionals and structures in ethics of science also called medical ethics, research ethics or bioethics in the fields of medicine and biology, should seek to identify and find specific ethical solutions to these tensions, applicable at a particular place and time, based on common ethical purposes and/or consequences. As a result, these specific ethical solutions may, or may not, lead to an evolution of common moral frameworks, which may, or may not, be developed on the basis of scientific integrity. In the fields of medicine and biology, this ethical theory is closely related to another theory, global bioethics, but with a number of new conceptual and methodological developments.

Refusal of vaccination against influenza and COVID-19 in patients with solid cancers: from bio-ethical issues to solutions

“…The implementation, initially of a “health pass” and then of a “vaccination pass” for the general population between June 2021 and March 2022 remains a pertinent explanation for this phenomenon ( 6 ). Vaccination policy still appears to be a major bio-ethical issue, the principal target of significant tensions between new medical and biological practices and certain specific moral values or standards ( 6 , 7 ). Vaccinations against flu and COVID-19 emerge largely as practices that are vital for the individual, or as imperative duties of the individual with respect to society.…”

“…In the particular case of a new health crisis generating moral tensions similar to those for COVID-19 and/or flu, rendering vaccination obligatory in an indirect manner — through a health or vaccination pass for example, although this is, of course, debatable — would remain a satisfactory specific bio-ethical solution, given its previous effects on common bio-ethical objectives (promoting survival and happiness, for example) ( 6 , 7 ). Outside of crisis situations, on an everyday basis, an indirect obligation for vaccination would still be advisable, but in other forms.…”

Correction: Good practice in medicine and biology: scientific integrity needs global bioethics

“…Following publication of the original article [ 1 ], we have been notified that Table 2 legend was incorrectly published. The correct legend of Table 2 should be as per below: Table 2 a Morality of science (eq.…”

“Emergency” multidisciplinary team meeting in cancer: a first feedback from a care team

“…More precisely, it is a new kind of MTM that integrates bioethics, as a discipline, in complex medical situations in which there is also clearly a need to identify and resolve certain “micro-bio-ethical issues” — i.e. significant tensions between medical/biological practices and moral values/standards at the level of the individual and/or the institution [ 2 ] — and to relieve “moral distress” — i.e. “the result of constraints on healthcare professional’ moral agency” [ 1 ].…”