阻碍更可信研究的四个错误观念。
Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research.
机构信息
Bioethics Program, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, United States.
Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
出版信息
Elife. 2019 Jul 29;8:e45261. doi: 10.7554/eLife.45261.
Abstract
A range of problems currently undermines public trust in biomedical research. We discuss four erroneous beliefs that may prevent the biomedical research community from recognizing the need to focus on deserving this trust, and thus which act as powerful barriers to necessary improvements in the research process.
摘要
当前，一系列问题破坏了公众对生物医学研究的信任。我们讨论了四种可能阻碍生物医学研究界认识到需要专注于赢得这种信任的错误信念，这些信念是研究过程中必要改进的强大障碍。
相似文献
1
Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research.
Elife. 2019 Jul 29;8:e45261. doi: 10.7554/eLife.45261.
2
Regaining Trust in Public Health and Biomedical Science following Covid: The Role of Scientists.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2023 Sep;53 Suppl 2:S105-S109. doi: 10.1002/hast.1531.
3
Trustworthy Research Institutions: The Challenging Case of Studying the Genetics of Intelligence.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2015 Sep-Oct;45(5 Suppl):S59-65. doi: 10.1002/hast.501.
4
Ensuring that addiction science is deserving of public trust.
Addiction. 2006 Sep;101(9):1223-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01552.x.
5
Public trust and research a decade later: what have we learned since Jesse Gelsinger's death?
Mol Genet Metab. 2009 May;97(1):4-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2009.02.002. Epub 2009 Feb 20.
6
Transforming the culture of biomedical research from compliance to trustworthiness: insights from nonmedical sectors.
Acad Med. 2009 Apr;84(4):472-7. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a8aa6.
7
Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society.
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 18;9(2):e88473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088473. eCollection 2014.
8
Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science--hitting the notes, but missing the music?
Community Genet. 2006;9(3):211-20. doi: 10.1159/000092659.
9
Conflict of interest and the public trust: a dean's view.
Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2003;114:369-82; discussion 382-4.
10
Trust, patents and public perceptions: the governance of controversial biotechnology research.
Nat Biotechnol. 2006 Nov;24(11):1352-4. doi: 10.1038/nbt1106-1352.
引用本文的文献
1
Why too much biomedical research is often undeserving of the public's trust.
Front Genet. 2025 Jun 26;16:1587616. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2025.1587616. eCollection 2025.
2
Strengthening a Weak Link: Transparency of Causal Loop Diagrams, Current State and Recommendation.
Syst Dyn Rev. 2023 Nov;40(4). doi: 10.1002/sdr.1753.
3
Plea for a Simple But Radical Change in Scientific Publication: To Improve Openness, Reliability, and Reproducibility, Let's Deposit and Validate Our Results before Writing Articles.
eNeuro. 2022 Sep 15;9(5). doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0318-22.2022. Print 2022 Sep-Oct.
4
A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges.
J Gen Philos Sci. 2022;53(4):583-599. doi: 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4. Epub 2022 Jun 1.
5
Using the concept of "deserved trust" to strengthen the value and integrity of biomedical research.
Account Res. 2021 Oct;28(7):456-469. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1855427. Epub 2020 Dec 26.
6
Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study.
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 15;15(10):e0240719. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240719. eCollection 2020.
本文引用的文献
1
Did a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting?
BMJ Open Sci. 2019 Feb 26;3(1):e000035. doi: 10.1136/bmjos-2017-000035. eCollection 2019.
2
A manifesto for reproducible science.
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jan 10;1(1):0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
3
Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations.
Elife. 2019 Jul 31;8:e47338. doi: 10.7554/eLife.47338.
4
Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity.
F1000Res. 2019 Apr 29;8:583. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.18453.2. eCollection 2019.
5
A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus).
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Jun 12;4:12. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3. eCollection 2019.
6
No Support for Historical Candidate Gene or Candidate Gene-by-Interaction Hypotheses for Major Depression Across Multiple Large Samples.
Am J Psychiatry. 2019 May 1;176(5):376-387. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18070881. Epub 2019 Mar 8.
7
Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure.
PLoS Biol. 2018 Mar 29;16(3):e2004089. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089. eCollection 2018 Mar.
8
An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 13;115(11):2584-2589. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708290115. Epub 2018 Mar 12.
9
Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections.
Eur J Clin Invest. 2018 Apr;48(4). doi: 10.1111/eci.12898. Epub 2018 Feb 23.
10
Post retraction citations in context: a case study.
Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):547-565. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0. Epub 2017 Mar 3.
Zotero 插件