The role of the national science foundation broader impacts criterion in enhancing research ethics pedagogy

Social Epistemology

Volumn 23, Issue 3-4, 2009, Pages 317-336

  Schienke, Erich W ^a   Tuana, Nancy ^b   Brown, Donald A ^a   Davis, Kenneth J ^c   Keller, Klaus ^c   Shortle, James S ^c   Stickler, Michelle ^d   Baum, Seth D ^b  

^a Science   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Department of Meteorology ^*  (United States)

^d Office of Research Protections   (United States)

Author keywords

Broader Impacts Criterion; Ethical Dimensions of Scientific Research; Extrinsic Ethics; Intrinsic Ethics; Responsible Conduct of Research; Social Justice

Indexed keywords

EID: 74249108608     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691720903364282     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Anderson, M. S. 2007. Collective openness and other recommendations for the promotion of research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4): 387-94.
2. Bone, R. 2003. Agreeing to fair process: The problem with contractarian theories of procedural fairness. Boston University Law Review 83 (3): 485-552.
3. Brenner, S. 1998. Essays on science and society: The impact of society on science. Science 282 (5393): 1411-12.
4. Brown, S., and M. W. Kalichman. 1998. Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: A survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (4): 487-98.
5. Dworkin, R. 1981. What is equality? Part 1: Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (3): 185-246.
6. Eastwood, S., P. Derish, E. Leash, and S. Ordway. 1996. Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4): 387-94.
7. Feyerabend, P. K. 1982. Science in a free society. London: Verso. Social Epistemology 335
8. Fleck, L. 1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Giere, R. N. 1999. Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Glover, J., ed. 1990. Utilitarianism and its critics. New York: Macmillan.
11. Harding, S. 1991. "Strong objectivity" and socially situated knowledge. In Whose science? Whose knowledge?, edited by S. Harding, pp. 138-65. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
12. Hess, D. J. 1997. Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University.
13. Holbrook, J. B. 2005. Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion. Technology in Society 27 (4): 437-51.
14. Holbrook, J. B., and R. Frodeman. 2007. Answering NSF's question: What are the "broader impacts" of the proposed activity? Professional Ethics Report 20 (3): 1-3.
15. Institute of Medicine. 1989. The responsible conduct of research in the health sciences. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
16. Institute of Medicine. 1995. Report on the commission on research integrity. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
17. Institute of Medicine. 2002a. Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
18. Institute of Medicine. 2002b. Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
19. Kalichman, M. W. 2007. Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82 (9): 870-5.
20. Kalichman, M. W., and P. J. Friedman. 1992. A pilot study of biomedical trainees's perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67 (11): 769-75.
21. Lamont, J. 1994. The concept of desert in distributive justice. The Philosophical Quarterly 44 (174): 45-64.
22. Lamont, J. 1995. Problems for effort-based distribution principles. Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (3): 215-29.
23. Latour, B. 1988. The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Latour, B. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Longino, H. E. 1997. Comments on science and social responsibility: A role for philosophy of science? Philosophy of Science 64 (4): S175.
27. Mervis, J. 2001. NSF scores low on using own criteria. Science 291 (5513): 2533-5.
28. Mill, J. S., and J. L. Laughlin. 1898. Principles of political economy. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
29. National Academy of Public Administration. 2001. A study of the National Science Foundation's criteria for project selection. Washington, DC: NAPA.
30. National Science Board 2003. The science and engineering workforce: Realizing America's potential, edited by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: NSF.
31. National Science Foundation. 1997a. GPRA strategic plan, FY 1997-FY 2003. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/od/gpraplan/gpraplan.htm; INTERNET.
32. National Science Foundation. 1997b. Important notice no. 121, new criteria for NSF proposals. NSF, Arlington, Virginia.
33. National Science Foundation. 2002a. Education and outreach, edited by Office of Inspector General. Available from www.nsf.gov; INTERNET.
34. National Science Foundation. 2002b. Important notice no. 127, implementation of new grant proposal guide requirements related to the Broader Impacts Criterion. NSF, Arlington, Virginia.
35. National Science Foundation. 2008. Letter from Z. H. Kafafi, Director, Division of Materials Research, NSF. NSF 08-062.
36. Nielson, K. 1979. Radical egalitarian justice: Justice as equality. Social Theory and Practice 5 (2): 209-26.
37. Pimple, K. D. 2002. Six domains of research ethics-A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2): 191-205.
38. Plemmons, D. K., S. A. Brody, and M. W. Kalichman. 2006. Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3): 571-82.
39. Powell, S. T., M. A. Allison, and M. W. Kalichman. 2007. Effectiveness of a responsible conduct of research course: A preliminary study. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (2): 249-64.
40. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
41. Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
42. Rescher, N. 1966. Distributive justice: A constructive critique of the utilitarian theory of distribution. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
43. Restivo, S. P. 1994. Science, society, and values toward a sociology of objectivity. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press.
44. Rhoades, L. J. 2002. Beyond conflict of interest: The responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3): 459-68.
45. Russell, B. 1968. The impact of science on society. New York: AMS Press.
46. Sen, A. 1982. Equality of what? In Choice, welfare, and measurement, edited by A. Sen, pp. 353-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Sen, A., and B. Williams, eds. 1982. Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 1985a. Risk analysis and scientific method: Methodological and ethical problems with evaluating societal hazards. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
49. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 1985b. Science policy, ethics, and economic methodology: Some problems of technology assessment and environmental-impact analysis. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
50. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 1994. Ethics of scientific research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
51. Solum, L. B. 2004. Procedural justice. Resource document. bepress Legal Series 141 [accessed 21 October 2008]. Available from http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/141; INTERNET.
52. Steneck, N. H., and R. E. Bulger. 2007. The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine 82 (9): 829-34.