Going Public: Good Scientific Conduct

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 173-197

  Meyer, Gitte ^a   Sandøe, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

CUDOS; Good scientific conduct; Openness; Science communication; Scientific integrity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL ETHICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

CODES OF ETHICS; COMMUNICATION; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; PUBLIC RELATIONS; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY;

EID: 84861458080     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-010-9247-x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Århus Amt, Aarhus Universitet Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet & Det Etiske Råd. (1995). Pressemeddelelser. (Press releases in Danish in connection with a national conference on gene therapy organised by The County of Aarhus, The Faculty of Medicine at the University of Aarhus and The Danish Council of Ethics).
2. Association of Universities in the Netherlands. (2004). The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice: Principles of good scientific teaching and research. http://www. vsnu. nl/web/show/id=120790/langid=42. Accessed 21 September 2010.
3. Barcelona Biomedical Research Park. (2009). Code of good scientific practice. http://www. prbb. org/docs/cbpc. pdf or http://www. prbb. org/eng/part01/p06. htm. Accessed 20 September 2010.
4. Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham UK & Philadelphia PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
5. Braxton, J. (Ed.). (1999). Perspectives on Scholarly Misconduct in the Sciences. Columbus OH: Ohio State University Press.
6. Butterfield, H. (1965). The origins of modern science. 1300-1800. London: G. Bell and Sons Ltd.
7. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. (2007). Code of good scientific practices in the relationships of the Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment with the health industry and/or other technology sponsors. http://www. gencat. cat/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/pdf/protocol-relacionsindustria2en. pdf. Accessed 20 September 2010.
8. Committee on Science, Engineering, Public Policy. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research (3rd ed.). Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering & Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
9. Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy. (1992). Report of the Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy. Presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. London: HSMO.
10. European Commission. (2007a). Integrating science in society issues in scientific research: Main findings of the study on the integration of science and Society issues in the Sixth Framework Programme. Brussels: European Commission.
11. European Commission. (2007b). Mid-term assessment. Science and society activities 2002-2006. Final Report 22 March 2007. EUR 22954. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research.
12. Faller, H. (2003). Schon in den nächsten Jahren werden in Deutschland grossflächig Wälder absterben. Die Zeit, 31. Dez. 2003, 47-48.
13. Folker, A. P., Holm, L., & Sandøe, P. (2009). We have to go where the money is: Dilemmas in the role of nutrition scientists: An interview study. Minerva, 47(2), 217-236.
14. Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.). (1986). Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York & London: The Free Press.
15. Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah NJ & London UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
16. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science's new social contract with society. Nature, 402(supp), C81-C84.
17. Gilcher-Holtey, I. (2005). Die 68er Bewegung: Deutschland, Westeuropa, USA. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
18. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2008). IARC Code of good scientific practice. IARC Working Group Reports, Volume 4. http://www. iarc. fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/wrk/wrk4/IARC_Code. pdf. Accessed 21 September 2010.
20. Jones, A. (2003). Covering science and technology. An interview with Cornelia Dean. November 22, 2002. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 3-11.
21. Macrina, F. L. (Ed.) (2005). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research (3rd ed.). Washington DC: ASM Press.
22. Meijboom, F. L. B. (2008). Problems of trust: A question of trustworthiness. PhD dissertation. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
23. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.
24. Meyer, G. (2003). The wide open concept of openness. In P. Rainelli (Ed.), EurSafe, 4th Congress of the European Society for agricultural and food ethics: Ethics as a dimension of agrifood policy. Proceedings (pp. 103-107). Toulouse: EurSafe & INRA.
25. Meyer, G. (2005a). Making marketing difficult. The Pantaneto Forum, 20. http://www. pantaneto. co. uk/issue20/meyer. htm. Accessed 15 July 2010.
26. Meyer, G. (2005b). Why clone farm animals? Goals, motives, assumptions, values and concerns among European scientists working with cloning of farm animals. Project Report 8. Frederiksberg: The Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment.
27. Meyer, G. (2005c). Principles for ethical deliberation in bio-scientific projects. Animal disease genomics: A case study. Project Report 10. Frederiksberg: Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment.
28. Moore, P. (1993). Genetic manipulation. New Scientist Inside Science, 66, 1-4.
29. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge UK: Polity.
30. Pearce, F. (2010). Climate wars: Guardian special investigation. Guardian online, http://www. guardian. co. uk/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness. Accessed 15 July 2010.
31. Resnik, D. B. (1998). Ethical problems and dilemmas in the interaction between science and the media. http://www. physics. emich. edu/mthomsen/resn2. htm. Accessed 13 September 2010.
32. Resnik, D. B. (1999). Conflicts of interest in science. Perspectives on Science, 6(4), 381-408.
33. Schneider, S. (1996). Don't bet all environmental changes will be beneficial. APS News Online, August/September 1996 Edition. http://www. aps. org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental. cfm. Accessed 15 July 2010.
34. Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge MA & London UK: Harvard University Press.
35. Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
37. Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London & New Delhi: Sage Publications & Thousand Oaks.
38. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. (2009). Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice with special focus on health science, natural science, technical science. Copenhagen: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation.
39. The Second World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Conference programme. http://www. wcri2010. org/programme. asp. Accessed 15 July 2010.
40. Williams, B. (1993). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. London: Fontana Press.
41. Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable knowledge. An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge, New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
42. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.