Professor Emerita of Organizations and Management, School of Business, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, 92521, USA.
Sydney Health Ethics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
J Bioeth Inq. 2022 Mar;19(1):129-134. doi: 10.1007/s11673-021-10149-5. Epub 2021 Dec 2.
In their 2018 article in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Little, Lipworth, and Kerridge unpack the concept of corruption and clarify the mechanisms that foster corruption and allow it to persist, noting that organizations are "corruptogenic." To address the "so-what" question, I draw on research about trust and trustworthiness, emphasizing that a person's well-being and sense of security require trust to be present at both the individual and organizational levels-which is not possible in an environment where corruption and misconduct prevail. I highlight similarities in Little et al.'s framing of corruption to the persistent problem of scientific misconduct in research and publishing. I acknowledge the challenges in stemming corruption in science and medicine and conclude with a discussion about the need to reinvigorate a web of stakeholders to actively engage in professional regulation.
在他们 2018 年发表在《剑桥医疗保健伦理季刊》上的文章中，Little、Lipworth 和 Kerridge 剖析了腐败的概念，并澄清了滋生腐败和使其持续存在的机制，指出组织是“腐败的根源”。为了解决“那又怎样”的问题，我借鉴了关于信任和值得信任的研究，强调个人的幸福感和安全感需要在个人和组织层面都存在信任——而在腐败和不当行为普遍存在的环境中，这是不可能的。我强调了 Little 等人对腐败的框架与研究和出版中持续存在的科学不端行为问题的相似之处。我承认在科学和医学领域遏制腐败的挑战，并以讨论需要重振利益相关者网络以积极参与专业监管结束。
