Openness versus Secrecy in Scientific Research

Episteme

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 135-147

  Resnik, David B ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010644512     PISSN: 17423600     EISSN: 17500117     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3366/epi.2005.2.3.135     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Angell M. 2004. The Truth about Drug Companies. New York: Random House.
2. Beauchamp T. and Childress J. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990).
4. Burke J. 1995. The Day the Universe Changed. New York: Back Bay Books.
5. Coleman C.; Menikoff J.; Goldner J.; and Dubler N. (eds.). 2006. Ethics and the Regulation of Research with Human Subjects. Dayton, Ohio: LexisNexis.
6. DeAngelis C., et al 2004. “Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,” New England Journal of Medicine 351: 1250–51.
7. Department of Health and Human Services. 2004. HIPAA privacy rule: information for researchers, updated August 4, 2004. Available at: http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_08.asp#8a Accessed: April 6, 2006.
8. Dresser R. 2001. When Science Offers Salvation. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Feinberg J. 1987. Harm to Others. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Foster F. and Shook R. 1993. Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks New York: John Wiley.
11. Fox R. and DeMarco J. 2000. Moral Reasoning, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
12. Giles J. 2006. “Stacking the deck,” Nature 440: 270–72.
13. Godlee F. 2002. “Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit,” Journal of the American Medical Association. 287: 2762–65.
14. Goldman A. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Hull D. 1988. Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Kaiser J. 2002. “Privacy rule creates bottleneck for U.S. biomedical researchers, Science 295: 1206–1207.
17. Kintish E. and Mervis J. 2006. “A budget with big winners and losers,” Science 311: 762–64.
18. Kitcher P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Krimsky S. 2003. Science in the Private Interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
20. Laudan L. 1984. Science and Values. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
21. Levine R. 1988. Ethics and the Regulation of Clinical Research. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22. Marshall E. 2002. “Data sharing: clear cut rules prove elusive,” Science 295: 1624.
23. Merton R. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Munthe C. and Welin S. 1996. “The morality of scientific openness,” Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4): 411–28.
25. National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism: Confronting the Dual Use Dilemma. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
26. Newton I. 1676. Letter to Robert Hooke. February 5, 1676.
27. Rennie D. 2003. “Editorial peer review: its development and rationale,” In: Godlee F. and Jefferson T. (eds.), Peer Review in the Health Sciences, 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 1–14.
28. Resnik D. 1996. “Social epistemology and the ethics of research,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 27: 566–586.
29. Resnik D. 1998. The Ethics of Science. New York: Routledge.
30. Resnik D. 2003. “A pluralistic account of intellectual property,” The Journal of Business Ethics 46: 319–35.
31. Resnik D. 2004. Owning the Genome. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
32. Resnik D. In Press. The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
33. Resnik D. and Shamoo A. 2005. “Bioterrorism and the responsible conduct of biomedical research,” Drug Development Research 63: 121–33.
34. Rosengard A.; Liu Y.; Nie Z.; and Jimenez R. 2002. “Variola virus immune evasion design: expression of a highly effi cient inhibitor of human complement,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 8808–13.
35. Shamoo A. and Resnik D. 2003. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. United States Constitution. 1787. Available at: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt. Accessed: March 28, 2006.
37. Wein L. and Liu Y. 2005. “Analyzing a bioterror attack on the food supply: the case of botulinum toxin in milk,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 9984–89.
38. Weiss R. 2005. “Report warns of threat to milk supply,” The Washington Post (June 29, 2005): A8.
39. Zarin D.; Tse T.; and Ide N. 2005. “Trial registration at clinicaltrials.gov between May and October 2005,” New England Journal of Medicine 353: 2779–87.