Suscripción a Biblioteca: Guest
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering

Publicado 6 números por año

ISSN Imprimir: 0278-940X

ISSN En Línea: 1943-619X

SJR: 0.262 SNIP: 0.372 CiteScore™:: 2.2 H-Index: 56

Indexed in

Wrongdoing in Biomedical Research: An Ethical Diagnosis and Prescription

Volumen 28, Edición 3&4, 2000, pp. 529-536
DOI: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v28.i34.310
Get accessGet access

SINOPSIS

Attention is focused on wrongdoing as a practice-specific notion to be fleshed out by reference to the ethos of a practice such as biomedical research. Wrongdoing in this sense, which is not the same thing as scientific misconduct, has not received the attention it deserves. There are two reasons for this: (1) we have a tendency to be ethically reactive and (2) we tend to be preoccupied with questions that are highly charged politically, socially, and morally. Explaining this further, two types of ethical questions are distinguished — whether-we-ought questions and how-we-ought questions. Using the Baltimore case for purposes of illustration, it is argued that failure to attend to the latter sort of questions is detrimental to the practice of biomedical research. Answering such questions requires careful attention to the ethos of the practice of biomedical research as well as action on the part of practitioners, particularly those who serve as mentors to persons entering the profession.

CITADO POR
  1. Bates Benjamin R., Senator Bill Frist and the Medical Jeremiad, Journal of Medical Humanities, 26, 4, 2005. Crossref

Portal Digitalde Biblioteca Digital eLibros Revistas Referencias y Libros de Ponencias Colecciones Precios y Políticas de Suscripcione Begell House Contáctenos Language English 中文 Русский Português German French Spain