Hansen Elaine Tuttle, Gluck Stuart, Shelton Amy L
Hastings Cent Rep. 2015 Sep-Oct;45(5 Suppl):S66-72. doi: 10.1002/hast.502.
There is another set of entities that needs to be brought into the conversation about the ethical, legal, and social implications of scientific conduct. This widely varied group includes not-for-profit educational, academic, public-service, and philanthropic organizations other than the type mentioned above as well as for-profit businesses. Despite their major differences, these organizations may all be in a position to make decisions, directly or indirectly, about the conduct of scientific research. And those decisions may have a significant impact on the parties normally involved in thinking and talking about obligations and concerns-the researchers, the subjects, and the general public. Yet there are few if any conceptual frameworks to help organizations address the ethical, legal, and social issues related to conducting scientific research. There are also few resources to help organizations find and develop the expertise required to make responsible decisions or communicate those decisions in ways that could support and advance the ethical conduct of research. In what follows, we try to identify and explore the duties, rights, and interests of one such organization, the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University, when asked to play a supporting role in research on the genetics of intelligence. As central agents in this case, we hope to demonstrate why organizations like CTY cannot be neglected in the broader effort to ensure trustworthy research into the genetics of intelligence.
还有另一类实体需要纳入关于科学行为的伦理、法律和社会影响的讨论中。这个种类繁多的群体包括除上述类型之外的非营利性教育、学术、公共服务和慈善组织以及营利性企业。尽管它们存在重大差异，但这些组织都可能直接或间接地对科学研究行为做出决策。而这些决策可能会对通常参与思考和讨论义务与关切的各方——研究人员、受试者和公众——产生重大影响。然而，几乎没有任何概念框架来帮助组织解决与进行科学研究相关的伦理、法律和社会问题。也几乎没有资源来帮助组织找到并培养做出负责任决策所需的专业知识，或以能够支持和推进符合伦理的研究行为的方式传达这些决策。在接下来的内容中，我们试图确定并探讨其中一个组织——约翰·霍普金斯大学天才青年中心——在被要求在智力遗传学研究中发挥支持作用时的职责、权利和利益。作为此案例中的核心主体，我们希望说明为什么像天才青年中心这样的组织在确保对智力遗传学进行可靠研究的更广泛努力中不能被忽视。
