Ethics and Relationships in Laboratories and Research Communities. Weil, V. & Arzbaecher, R. Professional Ethics, A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4(3):83–125, 1995.
doi  abstract   bibtex   
[Excerpt] [...] Recommendations for change in the management of research groups that have emerged from our analysis, with their emphasis on openness, explicitness, and back-and-forth communication, favor more democratic policies. At the same time, the examination of problematic situations underscores the need for leadership by principal investigators and re-search group directors who take responsibility for exercising authority and for setting forth policies that govern the conduct of research. These are not the only institutions facing the imperative to devise less autocratic practices while maintaining a structure of authority. Researchers, especially research directors, should accept an ongoing responsibility to scrutinize practices in the light of this imperative. Because of the almost endless variety of concrete situations such as those we have examined and because of changes in circumstances, the analysis and discussion of problematic instances should be an ongoing activity in research communities. That exercise of examining particular instances seems to sharpen the skills for thinking through and resolving problems well. One test of a good resolution is whether it would make a good policy. Indeed, persistence in examining problematic 'situations should help to generate useful policies. Many observers have commented that they are less concerned with out-and-out misconduct in science than with sloppiness and negligence. There is reason to think that negligence and sloppiness are more common and more insidious than outright misconduct. Because they are less rare and affect cooperation and trust, negligence and sloppiness are thought to pose a more serious threat to scientific enterprises than misconduct [...]. Negligence is the failure to meet an appropriate standard of care. Articulating and publicizing standards of conduct is an essential part of the effort to ensure that professionals meet an appropriate standard of care. Accordingly, we have been concerned throughout this essay with the need to make relevant standards and expectations explicit. We have also emphasized the need for structure and for communication that is not one-sided. We have suggested that lack of structure and communication invites problems and creates an underlying substrate for unnecessary pain. Ready-made models for organizing and managing research groups are of value, but with limitations. They have to be custom-made to fit personalities and circumstances. Some like to think of the family as the model for research groups, but, of course, families do not conform to a single pattern. So it remains for research groups to find their own way to arrangements that nourish trust and build social relationships that support responsible conduct in research. [...]
@article{weilEthicsRelationshipsLaboratories1995,
  title = {Ethics and Relationships in Laboratories and Research Communities},
  author = {Weil, Vivian and Arzbaecher, Robert},
  year = {1995},
  volume = {4},
  pages = {83--125},
  issn = {1063-6579},
  doi = {10.5840/profethics199543/414},
  abstract = {[Excerpt] [...] Recommendations for change in the management of research groups that have emerged from our analysis, with their emphasis on openness, explicitness, and back-and-forth communication, favor more democratic policies. At the same time, the examination of problematic situations underscores the need for leadership by principal investigators and re-search group directors who take responsibility for exercising authority and for setting forth policies that govern the conduct of research. These are not the only institutions facing the imperative to devise less autocratic practices while maintaining a structure of authority. Researchers, especially research directors, should accept an ongoing responsibility to scrutinize practices in the light of this imperative. Because of the almost endless variety of concrete situations such as those we have examined and because of changes in circumstances, the analysis and discussion of problematic instances should be an ongoing activity in research communities. That exercise of examining particular instances seems to sharpen the skills for thinking through and resolving problems well. One test of a good resolution is whether it would make a good policy. Indeed, persistence in examining problematic 'situations should help to generate useful policies. Many observers have commented that they are less concerned with out-and-out misconduct in science than with sloppiness and negligence. There is reason to think that negligence and sloppiness are more common and more insidious than outright misconduct. Because they are less rare and affect cooperation and trust, negligence and sloppiness are thought to pose a more serious threat to scientific enterprises than misconduct [...]. Negligence is the failure to meet an appropriate standard of care. Articulating and publicizing standards of conduct is an essential part of the effort to ensure that professionals meet an appropriate standard of care. Accordingly, we have been concerned throughout this essay with the need to make relevant standards and expectations explicit. We have also emphasized the need for structure and for communication that is not one-sided. We have suggested that lack of structure and communication invites problems and creates an underlying substrate for unnecessary pain. Ready-made models for organizing and managing research groups are of value, but with limitations. They have to be custom-made to fit personalities and circumstances. Some like to think of the family as the model for research groups, but, of course, families do not conform to a single pattern. So it remains for research groups to find their own way to arrangements that nourish trust and build social relationships that support responsible conduct in research. [...]},
  journal = {Professional Ethics, A Multidisciplinary Journal},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14694185,discrimination,research-bullying,research-management,science-ethics,scientific-misconduct},
  lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-14694185},
  number = {3}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021