Title
Scientific Self-Regulation--So Good, How Can it Fail?: Commentary on "The Problems with Forbidding Science"
Publication Date
4-10-2009
Abstract
To be a functional alternative to government regulation, self-regulation of science must be credible to both scientists and the public, accountable, ethical, and effective. According to some, serious problems continue in research ethics in the United States despite a rich history of proposed self-regulatory standards and oversight devices. Successful efforts at self-regulation in stem cell research contrast with unsuccessful efforts in research ethics, particularly conflicts of interest. Part of the cause for a lack of success in self-regulation is fragmented, disconnected oversight, and failure to embody genuine scientific and public consensus. To be accountable, credible and effective, self-regulation must be inclusive and multidisciplinary, publicly engaged, sufficiently disinterested, operationally integrated with institutional goals, and must implement a genuine consensus among scientists and the public. The mechanisms of self-regulation must be sufficiently broad in their oversight, and interconnected with other institutional forces and actors, that they do not create fragmented solutions.
Recommended Citation
Taylor P.L. (2009). Scientific self-regulation-so good, how can it fail? Commentary on The problems with forbidding science. Science and Engineering Ethics. 15(3), 395-406.
Topic
Conflict of Interest
Material Type
Other
Research Area
Life Sciences | Medicine and Health Sciences | Physical Sciences and Mathematics | Social and Behavioral Sciences
Link to Full Content
