Abstract
AbstractThis paper argues for a novel account of deceitful scientific communication, as “wishful speaking”. This concept is of relevance both to philosophy of science and to discussions of the ethics of lying and misleading. Section 1 outlines a case-study of “ghost-managed” research. Section 2 introduces the concept of “wishful speaking” and shows how it relates to other forms of misleading communication. Sections 3–5 consider some complications raised by the example of pharmaceutical research; concerning the ethics of silence; how research strategies—as well as the communication of results—may be misleading; and questions of multiple authorship. The conclusion suggests some more general conclusions.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference63 articles.
1. Alamassi, B. (2014). Medical ghostwriting and informed consent. Bioethics, 28(9), 491–499.
2. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Bhopal, R., et al. (1997). The vexed question of authorship. British Medical Journal, 314, 1009.
4. Biagioli, M. (1998). The instability of authorship: Credit and responsibility in contemporary biomedicine. The FASEB Journal, 12(1), 3–16.
5. Biddle, J. (2007). Lessons from the Vioxx debacle: What the privatization of science can teach us about social epistemology. Social Epistemology, 21(1), 21–39.
Cited by
9 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