Abstract
AbstractResearchers sometimes engage in various forms of dishonesty and unethical behavior, which has led to regulatory efforts to ensure that they work according to acceptable standards. Such regulation is a difficult task, as research is a diverse and dynamic endeavor. Researchers can disagree about what counts as good and acceptable standards, and these standards are constantly developing. This paper presents and discusses recent changes in research integrity and ethics regulation in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Recognizing that research norms are developed through practice and are therefore unsuited for comprehensive national regulation, the Scandinavian countries focus on empowering the research community to regulate itself instead, except for the most severe cases of misconduct. This empowerment takes the form of giving research institutions tools and investigatory powers while also holding them responsible for ensuring that both the institution and individual researchers are up to date on relevant norms. In this way, the Scandinavian governments seek to avoid some of the challenges found in more legalistic approaches, which risk lagging behind the continuous development of research norms and can be insensitive to the fact that different disciplines have different norms. While the new approach in Scandinavian has several potential benefits, it also involves potential trade-offs and limitations. The new laws can create confusion about what researchers are allowed to do. Another issue is that it only addresses the fundamental drivers of misconduct to a limited extent.
Funder
European Research Council
University of Oslo
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)
Reference43 articles.
1. Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5
2. Asdal, K., & Reinertsen, H. (2021). Doing document analysis: A practice-oriented method. Sage
3. Baldwin, M. (2018). Scientific autonomy, public accountability, and the rise of ‘Peer Review’ in the cold war United States. Isis, 109(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1086/700070
4. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
5. Bülow, W., & Helgesson, G. (2019). Criminalization of scientific misconduct. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 22(2), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9865-7
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献