Abstract
Of course science must be self-correcting and self-regulating. Over time, the division of labor between the scientific community and the public has shifted in the direction of democratization, requiring focus on social responsibility and some regulatory oversight. The Institutional Corruption framework, broadly applied across societal activities, requires that science must be true to its core purpose and not diverted from it by institutional practices focused on other goals, frequently profit. Once firmly established, it is difficult to revert to goals and values of science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Grey, A., Gamble, G., & Bolland, M. (2019). An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature. BMJ Open, 9(10), e031909. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031909
Babb, S. (2020). Regulating human research. Stanford University Press.
Bak, H. (2018). Research misconduct in East Asia’s research environments. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 12(2), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-6577620
Becker, R. E. (2020). Two cultures in modern science and technology: For safety and validity does medicine have to update? Journal of Patient Safety, 16(1), e46–e50. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000260
Bielekova, B., & Brownlee, S. (2021). The imperative to find the courage to redesign the biomedical research enterprise. F1000, 10, 641m.
Bolland, M. J., Avenell, A., Gamble, G. D., & Grey, A. (2016). Systematic review and statistical analysis of the integrity of 33 randomized controlled trials. Neurology, 87(23), 2391–2402. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003387
Bordewijk, E. M., Li, W., van Eekelen, R., Want, R., Showell, M., Mol, B. W., & van Wely, M. (2021). Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: A sco** review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 136, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.012
Bryan, C., Tipton, E., & Yeager, D. S. (2021). Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behavior, 5(8), 980–989. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01143-3
CFRS. (2021). Freedom and responsibility in the 21st century: A contemporary perspective on the free and responsible practice of research. Draft Discussion Paper.
Chambers, C. D., & Tzavella, L. (2021). The past, present and future of registered reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01193-7
Desmond, H., & Dierickx, K. (2021). Trust and professionalism in science: Medical codes as a model for scientific negligence? BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00610-w
Douglas, H. (2021). Scientific freedom and social responsibility. In P. Hartl & A. T. Tuboly (Eds.), Science, freedom. Routledge.
Drew, T. W., & Mueller-Doblies, U. U. (2017). Dual use issues in research–A subject of increasing concern? Vaccine, 35(44), 5990–5994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.109
Du Sert, N. P., Hurst, V., Ahluwallia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., Garner, P., Holgate, S. T., Howells, D. W., Karp, N. A., Lazic, S. E., Lidster, K., MacCallum, C. J., Macleod, M., et al. (2020). The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. British Journal of Pharmacology, 177(16), 3617–3624. https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.15193
Egilman, A. C., Kapczynski, A., McCarthy, M. E., Luxkaranayagam, A. T., Morten, C. J., Herder, M., Wallach, J. D., & Ross, J. S. (2021). Transparency of regulatory data across the European medicines agency, Health Canada, and the US Food and Drug Administration. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 49(3), 456–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2021.67
Errington, T. M., Denis, A., Perfito, N., Iorns, E., & Nosek, B. A. (2021). Challenges for assessing replicability in preclinical cancer biology. eLife, 10, e67995. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67995
Evans, N. G., Selgelid, M. J., & Simpson, M. R. (2022). Reconciling regulation with scientific autonomy in dual-use research. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 47(1), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhab041
Evans, T. R., Branney, P., Clements, A., & Hatton, E. (2021). Improving evidence-based practice through preregistration of applied research: Barriers and recommendations. Accountability in Research, 30, 88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1969233
Frampton, G., Woods, L., & Scott, D. A. (2021). Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice. PLoS One, 16(10), e0258935. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258935
Franzen, S. (2021). University responsibility for the adjudication of research misconduct: The science bubble. Springer.
Freese, J., & Peterson, D. (2018). The emergence of statistical objectivity: Changing ideas of epistemic vice and virtue in science. Sociological Theory, 36(3), 289–313.
Halpern, S. A. (2021). Dangerous medicine. Yale University Press.
Heesen, R., & Bright, L. K. (2021). Is peer review a good idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 635–663. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3823-944X
Imperiale, M. J., & Casadevall, A. (2018). A new approach to evaluating the risk-benefit equation for dual-use and gain-of-function research of concern. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 6, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2018.00021
International Science Council. (2021a). Opening the record of science.
International Science Council. (2021b). Strengthening research integrity.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLoS Biology, 16(3), e2005468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7(6), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464056
Jacobs, N. (2020). A moral obligation to proper experimentation: Research ethics as epistemic filter in the aftermath of world war II. Isis, 111(4), 759–780.
Kalichman, M. (2020). Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct. Research Integrity & Peer Review, 5(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00103-1
Kavouras, P., & Charitidis, C. A. (2020). Dual use in modern research. In R. Iphofen (Ed.), Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity. Springer/Nature.
Kurtulmus, F. (2021). The democratization of science. In D. Ludwig, I. Koskinen, L. Mncube, L. Poliseli, & R. Reyes-Garcia (Eds.), Global epistemologies and philosophies of science.
Landeweerd, L., Townend, D., Mesman, J., & Van Hoyweghen, I. (2015). Reflections on different governance styles in regulating science: A contribution to ‘responsible research and innovation’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 11, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y
Landis, S. C., Amara, S. G., Asadullah, K., Austin, C. P., Blumenstein, R., Bradley, E. W., Crystal, R. G., Darnell, R. B., Ferrante, R. J., Fillit, H., Finkelstein, R., Fisher, M., Gendelman, H. E., Golub, R. M., Goudreau, J. I., Gross, R. A., Gubitz, A. K., Hesterlee, S. E., Howells, D. W., et al. (2012). A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature, 490(7419), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11556
Laurie, G. T., Dove, E. S., Ganguli-Mitra, A., Fletcher, I., McMillan, C., Sethi, N., & Sorbie, A. (2018). Charting regulatory stewardship in health research: Making the invisible visible. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 27(2), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180117000664
Lessig, L. (2013). “Institutional corruption” defined. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 41(3), 553–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12063
Li, W., Gurrin, L. C., & Mol, B. W. (2022). Violation of research integrity principles occurs more often than we think. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 443(2), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.11.022
Littoz-Monnet, A. (2020). Governing through expertise: The politics of bioethics. Cambridge University Press.
Maurer, S. M. (2017). Self-governance in science. Cambridge University Press.
Miedema, F. (2022). Open science: The very idea. Springer.
Mikami, K. (2018). The case of inferred doability: An analysis of the socio-institutional background of the STAP cell scandal. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 12(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-4202323
Montgomery, K., & Oliver, A. L. (2009). Shifts in guidelines for ethical scientific conduct: How public and private organizations create and change norms for research integrity. Social Studies of Science, 39(1), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312708097659
Montoya, A. K., Krenzer, W. L. D., & Fossum, J. L. (2021). Opening the door to registered reports: Census of journals publishing registered reports (2013-2020). Collabr. Psychology, 7(1), 24404. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.24404
Musunuri, S., Sandbrink, J. B., Monrad, J. T., Palmer, M. J., & Koblentz, G. D. (2021). Rapid proliferation of pandemic research: Implications for dual-use risks. mBio, 12(5), e0186421. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01864-21
Nelson, J. P., Selin, C. L., & Scott, C. T. (2021). Toward anticipatory governance of human genome editing: A critical review of scholarly governance discourse. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(3), 382–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1957579
NIH. (2021). Strategic Plan, 2021–2025.
Offit, P. A. (2021). You Bet Your Life. Basic Books.
Redman, B. K. (2015, March 25). Are the biomedical sciences sliding toward institutional corruption? Harvard University, Edmond J. Safra Working Paper No. 59.
Resnik, D. B. (2018). Research integrity. Springer.
Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467
Schneider, J. W., Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Aagaard, K. (2021). Stop blaming external factors: A historical-sociological argument. Social Sciences Information, 60(3), 329–337.
Sil, A., Bespalov, A., Dalla, C., Ferland-Beckham, C., Herremans, A., Karantzalos, K., Kas, M. J., Kokras, N., Parnham, M. J., Pavlidi, P., Pristouris, K., Steckler, S., Riedel, G., & Emmerich, C. H. (2021). PEERS–An open science “platform for the exchange of experimental research standards” in biomedicine. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 755812. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.755812
Teodorescu, K., Plonsky, O., Ayal, S., & Barkan, R. (2021). Frequency of enforcement is more important than the severity of punishment in reducing violation behaviors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 118(42), e2108507118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108507118
Thompson, D. F. (2013, August 1). “Two concepts of corruption, Harvard University.” Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Working Paper No. 16.
Upshur, R., & Goldenberg, M. (2020). Countering medical nihilism by reconnecting facts and values. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 84, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.08.005
Vennis, I. M., Schaap, M. M., Hogervorst, P. A. M., deBruin, A., Schulpen, S., Boot, M. A., van Passel, M. W. J., Rutjes, S. A., & Bleijs, D. A. (2021). Dual-use Quickscan: A web-based tool to assess the dual-use potential of life science research. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 9, 797076. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.797076
**e, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science & Engineering Ethics, 27(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Redman, B. (2023). Emerging, Evolving Self-Regulation by the Scientific Community. In: Reconstructing Research Integrity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27111-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27111-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-27110-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-27111-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)