Reducing Ethical Hazards in Knowledge Production

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Alan Cottey
• 关键词：Knowledge production ; Ethical hazards ; Ethos of science ; Peer review ; Comprehensive review ; Openness
• 刊名：Science and Engineering Ethics
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：April 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：22
• 期：2
• 页码：367-389
• 全文大小：473 KB
• 参考文献：Abbott, A., & Nosengo, N. (2014). Italian seismologists cleared of manslaughter. doi:10.​1038/​515171a http://​www.​nature.​com/​news/​italian-seismologists-cleared-of-manslaughter-1.​16313 . Accessed 19 March 2015. A shorter version, under the title ‘Scientists cleared of quake deaths’, is in the print magazine. Nature, 515(7526), 171.
  Agassi, J. (1981). Science and society (Vol 65 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science). London: Reidel.
  Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., de Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2010). Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms of research. Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 366–393.CrossRef
  Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (2014). Atmospheric chemistry and physics: An interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union. http://​www.​atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.​net . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Begley, L. (2007). Wartime lies. London: Penguin Modern Classics. (This edition includes an afterword by the author. The book was first published in 1991.)
  Bettig, R. V. (1996). Copyrighting culture: The political economy of intellectual property. Boulder, CO: Westview.
  Biology Direct (2014). Unique model of peer review. www.​biologydirect.​com . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65.CrossRef
  Bohm, D., & Peat, F. D. (1989). Science, order, and creativity. London: Routledge.
  Cottey, A. (2009). Aspects of open science. www.​uea.​ac.​uk/​~c013/​v2/​open-sci/​aspects-of-open-sci.​pdf . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Cottey, A. (2010). Openness, confidence and trust in science and society. International Journal of Science in Society, 1(4), 185–194. http://​ijy.​cgpublisher.​com/​product/​pub.​187/​prod.​68 . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Cottey, A. (2014). Knowledge production in a cooperative economy. Policy Futures in Education 12(4), 469–481. doi:10.​2304/​pfie.​2014.​12.​4.​4469 . Author’s accepted manuscript www.​uea.​ac.​uk/​~c013/​v2/​KPICE-v1-5.​pdf . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  De Roure, D., et al. (2010). Towards open science: The myExperiment approach. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 22(17), 2335–2353. doi:10.​1002/​cpe.​1601 .CrossRef
  Eamon, W. (1985). From the secrets of nature to public knowledge: The origins of the concept of openness in science. Minerva, 23(3), 321–347.CrossRef
  Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311–326.CrossRef
  Frank, R. H., & Cook, P. J. (2010). The winner-take-all society. (First published 1995) London: Ebury Publishing.
  Garfield, E. (1989). Peer review, refereeing, fraud, and other essays. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
  Garside, J., & Sample, I. (2014). Disaster at the speed of sound: the tragedy of SpaceShipTwo’s final flight. The Guardian. http://​www.​theguardian.​com/​science/​2014/​nov/​07/​virgin-galactic-tragedy-revealed-spaceshiptwo-disaster . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Gibbons, M., & Wittrock, B. (1985). Science as a commodity: Threats to the open community of scholars. Harlow, UK: Longman.
  Gould, T. H. P. (2010). Scholar as e-publisher: The future role of [anonymous] peer review within online publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(4), 428–448. doi:10.​3138/​jsp.​41.​4.​428 .
  Halbert, D. J. (2014). The state of copyright: The complex relationship of cultural creation in a globalized world. London: Routledge.
  Harnad, S. (1982). Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific quality control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Herron, D. M. (2012). Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surgical Endoscopy, 26, 2275–2280.CrossRef
  Hoffman, P. (1998). The man who loved only numbers: The story of Paul Erdős and the search for mathematical truth. London: Fourth Estate.
  Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
  Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C., & Pinch, T. (1995). Handbook of science and technology studies (Revised ed.). London: Sage.
  Matthew. (1953). The Gospel According to St Matthew, 25:29. In Anonymous Scholars of the Church of England, The Holy Bible: Authorised King James version. Oxford, Oxford University Press. (Reprint; first published 1611). Also available at biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/25-29.htm. Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Maxwell, N. (2014). How universities can help create a wiser world. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.
  McKibben, B. (2007). Deep economy: The wealth of communities and the durable future. New York: Henry Holt.
  McNutt, M. (2013). Natural systems in changing climates. Science, 341(6145), 435 and 472–524.
  Mendick, R., Malnick, E., & Crilly, R. (2014). Branson spaceship explosion: The ‘missed’ warnings. The Telegraph http://​www.​telegraph.​co.​uk/​news/​worldnews/​northamerica/​usa/​11203634/​Branson-spaceship-explosion-The-missed-warnings.​html . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Merton, R. K. (1974). The ambivalence of scientists. Ch 2, In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Sociological ambivalence and other essays (pp. 32–55). New York: Free Press.
  Merton, R. K. (1996a). The ethos of science. Ch 20, In: P. Sztompka (Ed.), On social theory and social structure (pp. 267–276). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (The article is also reprinted in other collections of papers of Merton.)
  Merton, R. K. (1996b). The Matthew effect, II. Ch 24, In: P. Sztompka (Ed.), On social theory and social structure (pp. 318–336). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  Meschel, S. V. (2012). A modern dilemma for chemistry and civic responsibility: the tragic life of Clara Immerwahr. Zeitschrift fuer Anorganische und Allgemeine Chemie, 638(3–4), 603–609. First published online, 8 March 2012. doi:10.​1002/​zaac.​201100409 .
  Meyer, G., & Sandøe, P. (2012). Going public: Good scientific conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 173–197. doi:10.​1007/​s11948-010-9247-x .CrossRef
  Miller, C. C. (2006). Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425–431.CrossRef
  Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595.CrossRef
  Nature Editorial (2014). Review rewards. Nature, 514(7522), 274. doi:10.​1038/​514274a . http://​www.​nature.​com/​news/​review-rewards-1.​16138 . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Neville-Sington, P., & Sington, D. (1993). Paradise dreamed: How utopian thinkers have changed the modern world. London: Bloomsbury.
  Nielsen, M. (2009). Doing science in the open. Physics World, 22(5), 30–35.CrossRef
  Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
  Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (Eds.). (2003). Foundations of social capital. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  Oxford English Dictionary Online (2014). http://​www.​oed.​com . Accessed 30 September 2014.
  Peters, M. A. (2014). Open science, philosophy and peer review. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(3), 215–219. doi:10.​1080/​00131857.​2013.​781296 . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
  Redman, B. K., & Metz, J. F. (2008). Scientific misconduct: Do the punishments fit the crime? Science, 321(5890), 775. doi:10.​1126/​science.​1158052 .CrossRef
  Segrè, E. (1970). Enrico Fermi, physicist. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  Singh, S. (2005). Fermat’s last theorem. (First published 1997.) London: Harper Perennial.
  Sismondo, S. (2010). An introduction to science and technology studies (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2003). Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Speer, A. (1970). Inside the Third Reich. (Translated by R. and C. Winston). London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
  Steger, M. B., & Roy, R. K. (2010). Neoliberalism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
  Thring, M. W. (1980). The engineer’s conscience. Brandish, Suffolk, UK: M. W. Thring.
  Tirosh, D. (Ed.). (1994). Implicit and explicit knowledge: An educational approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  United Nations (1945). Preamble to the charter of the United Nations. www.​un.​org/​en/​documents/​charter/​preamble.​shtml . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  US Office of Research Integrity (2014). About ORI. http://​ori.​hhs.​gov/​about-ori . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., & Evans, S. J. W. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 341:c5729. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​c5729 . Accessed 19 March 2015
  Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  Wilmshurst, P. (2013). Obstacles to honesty in science: The case of medical research. SGR Newsletter, Issue 43, 12–13. www.​sgr.​org.​uk/​sites/​sgr.​org.​uk/​files/​SGRNL42_​Obstaclestohones​ty.​pdf . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Witze, A. (2014). Fledgling space industry resolute after fatal crash. Nature 515(7525), 15–16. http://​www.​nature.​com/​news/​fledgling-space-industry-resolute-after-fatal-crash-1.​16277 . Accessed 19 March 2015.
  Ziman, J. M. (1978). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  Ziman, J. M. (1994). Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Alan Cottey (1)
  
  1. School of Chemistry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
  
• 刊物主题：Ethics; Philosophy of Science; Engineering, general; Biomedical Engineering; Medicine/Public Health, general; Philosophy;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1471-5546

文摘

This article discusses the ethics of knowledge production (KP) from a cultural point of view, in contrast with the more usual emphasis on the ethical issues facing individuals involved in KP. Here, the emphasis is on the cultural environment within which individuals, groups and institutions perform KP. A principal purpose is to suggest ways in which reliable scientific knowledge could be produced more efficiently. The distinction between ethical hazard and (un)ethical behaviour is noted. Ethical hazards cannot be eliminated but they can be reduced if the cultural ambience is suitable. The main suggestions for reducing ethical hazards in KP relate to the review process. It is argued that some defects of the current, largely anonymous, review process could be ameliorated by a process of comprehensive, open and ongoing review (COOR). This includes partial professionalisation of the work of reviewing. Review at several stages is a vital part of the long filtering that incorporates some claims into the canon of reliable knowledge. The review process would be an acknowledged and explicit part of KP—a respected, public and rewarded activity. COOR would be expensive but cost-effective. The costs should be built explicitly into research culture. Finally, the considerations about a more ‘KP friendly’ culture lead to advocacy of a ‘long-term, short-term’ synthesis; that is, of the synthesis of long-term vision, such as a more cooperative and less competitive culture, with incremental changes which may be implemented in the short term.