Article Text
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate life scientists’ views of accountability and the ethical and societal implications of research.
Design: Qualitative focus group and one-on-one interviews.
Participants: 45 Stanford University life scientists, including graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty.
Results: Two main themes were identified in participants’ discussions of accountability: (1) the “how” of science and (2) the “why” of science. The “how” encompassed the internal conduct of research including attributes such as honesty and independence. The “why,” or the motivation for conducting research, was two-tiered: first was the desire to positively impact the research community and science itself, and second was an interest in positively impacting the external community, broadly referred to as society. Participants noted that these motivations were influenced by the current systems of publications, grants and funding, thereby supporting a complex notion of boundary-setting between science and non-science. In addition, while all participants recognised the “how” of science and the two tiers of “why,” scientists expressed the need to prioritise these domains of accountability. This prioritisation was related to a researcher’s position in the academic career trajectory and to the researcher’s subsequent “perceived proximity” to scientific or societal concerns. Our findings therefore suggest the need for institutional change to inculcate early-stage researchers with a broader awareness of the implications of their research. The peer review processes for funding and publication could be effective avenues for encouraging scientists to broaden their views of accountability to society.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding This study was supported by grant no. P50 HG003389 from the US National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Developing a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum for professionalism and scientific integrity training for biomedical graduate students
- Problem-based learning for professionalism and scientific integrity training of biomedical graduate students: process evaluation
- How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers
- Ludwig Cancer Research Announces $540 Million Gift
- News
- Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best–worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers
- GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
- Genetics services in a social, ethical and policy context: a collaboration between consumers and providers
- New-media arts-based public engagement projects could reshape the future of the generative biology
- 2012 NIH BrIDGs Projects Announced