Доступ предоставлен для: Guest
Портал Begell Электронная Бибилиотека e-Книги Журналы Справочники и Сборники статей Коллекции
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering
SJR: 0.207 SNIP: 0.376 CiteScore™: 0.79

ISSN Печать: 0278-940X
ISSN Онлайн: 1943-619X

Том 47, 2019 Том 46, 2018 Том 45, 2017 Том 44, 2016 Том 43, 2015 Том 42, 2014 Том 41, 2013 Том 40, 2012 Том 39, 2011 Том 38, 2010 Том 37, 2009 Том 36, 2008 Том 35, 2007 Том 34, 2006 Том 33, 2005 Том 32, 2004 Том 31, 2003 Том 30, 2002 Том 29, 2001 Том 28, 2000 Том 27, 1999 Том 26, 1998 Том 25, 1997 Том 24, 1996 Том 23, 1995

Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering

DOI: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v28.i34.310
pages 529-536

Wrongdoing in Biomedical Research: An Ethical Diagnosis and Prescription

Daniel E. Wueste
Department of Philosophy and Religion, Clemson University, 101 Hardin Hall, Box 341508, Clemson, SC

Краткое описание

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.