Jones Nancy L
Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Mar;13(1):25-43. doi: 10.1007/s11948-006-0007-x.
The activities of the life sciences are essential to provide solutions for the future, for both individuals and society. Society has demanded growing accountability from the scientific community as implications of life science research rise in influence and there are concerns about the credibility, integrity and motives of science. While the scientific community has responded to concerns about its integrity in part by initiating training in research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, this approach is minimal. The scientific community justifies itself by appealing to the ethos of science, claiming academic freedom, self-direction, and self-regulation, but no comprehensive codification of this foundational ethos has been forthcoming. A review of the professional norms of science and a prototype code of ethics for the life sciences provide a framework to spur discussions within the scientific community to define scientific professionalism. A formalization of implicit principles can provide guidance for recognizing divergence from the norms, place these norms within a context that would enhance education of trainees, and provide a framework for discussing externally and internally applied pressures that are influencing the practice of science. The prototype code articulates the goal for life sciences research and the responsibilities associated with the freedom of exploration, the principles for the practice of science, and the virtues of the scientists themselves. The time is ripe for scientific communities to reinvigorate professionalism and define the basis of their social contract. Codifying the basis of the social contract between science and society will sustain public trust in the scientific enterprise.
生命科学活动对于为个人和社会的未来提供解决方案至关重要。随着生命科学研究的影响日益增大,社会要求科学界承担更多责任,同时人们也对科学的可信度、诚信度和动机表示担忧。虽然科学界部分地通过开展研究诚信和负责任研究行为的培训来回应有关其诚信的担忧,但这种做法力度有限。科学界以科学精神为自己辩护,声称拥有学术自由、自我指导和自我监管,但尚未形成对这一基础精神的全面编纂。对科学专业规范的审视以及生命科学道德规范原型提供了一个框架,以激发科学界内部关于界定科学专业性的讨论。隐性原则的形式化可以为识别与规范的偏差提供指导,将这些规范置于一个能加强对受训人员教育的背景中,并为讨论影响科学实践的外部和内部施加的压力提供一个框架。该规范原型阐明了生命科学研究的目标以及与探索自由相关的责任、科学实践的原则和科学家自身的美德。科学界重振专业性并界定其社会契约基础的时机已经成熟。编纂科学与社会之间社会契约的基础将维持公众对科学事业的信任。