Article Text
PDFResponse
The case for a duty to research: not yet proven
Abstract
In this commentary on ‘Why Participating in (Certain) Scientific Research is a Moral Duty’, I take issue with a number of Stjernschantz Forsberg et al's claims. Though abiding by the terms of a contract might be obligatory, this won't show that those terms themselves indicate a duty—even allowing that there's a contract to begin with. Meanwhile, though we might have reasons to participate, not all reasons are moral reasons, and the paper does not establish that the reasons here are moral in character.
- Research Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Why participating in (certain) scientific research is a moral duty
- Herpes genitalis and the philosopher's stance
- Scientific research is a moral duty
- Balancing professional obligations and risks to providers in learning healthcare systems
- Is procreative beneficence obligatory?
- Respect for autonomy: deciding what is good for oneself
- Dotting the I's and crossing the T's: autonomy and/or beneficence? The ‘fetus as a patient’ in maternal–fetal surgery
- Ethical reflection on the harm in reproductive decision-making
- Kant on euthanasia and the duty to die: clearing the air
- Justification of principles for healthcare priority setting: the relevance and roles of empirical studies exploring public values