Filling the Network Gap in Research Ethics: Analyzing Ethical Issues at Scale in Big Team Science

IF 2.7 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Susan M. Wolf, Gillian H. Roehrig, Timothy L. Pruett, Korkut Uygun, Adam Koch, Claire Colby McVan, Evelyn Brister, Shawneequa L. Callier, Alexander M. Capron, James F. Childress, Rosario Isasi, Andrew D. Maynard, Kenneth A. Oye, Paul B. Thompson, Terrence R. Tiersch
{"title":"Filling the Network Gap in Research Ethics: Analyzing Ethical Issues at Scale in Big Team Science","authors":"Susan M. Wolf,&nbsp;Gillian H. Roehrig,&nbsp;Timothy L. Pruett,&nbsp;Korkut Uygun,&nbsp;Adam Koch,&nbsp;Claire Colby McVan,&nbsp;Evelyn Brister,&nbsp;Shawneequa L. Callier,&nbsp;Alexander M. Capron,&nbsp;James F. Childress,&nbsp;Rosario Isasi,&nbsp;Andrew D. Maynard,&nbsp;Kenneth A. Oye,&nbsp;Paul B. Thompson,&nbsp;Terrence R. Tiersch","doi":"10.1002/hast.70046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Scientific research increasingly involves large, multidisciplinary teams networked across multiple institutions to develop new technologies. Despite the rise of complex research networks and big team science, there has been too little analysis to date of the ethical challenges facing these networks. The extensive literature on the ethical issues confronting individual researchers and small teams (the microlevel) and on the larger societal challenges flowing from research and new technology (the macrolevel) leaves a troubling gap in between, at the mesolevel of the research network involved in big team science. Yet the ability of complex networks to conduct research ethically—which is essential if the results are to be deemed reliable and trustworthy—depends on recognizing the ethical issues that emerge at this intermediate network level, identifying the values that should guide networks in addressing those issues, and equipping research leaders to build a culture supporting the ethical conduct of research across the laboratories and institutions that comprise the network. This paper calls out the problem, analyzing the gap and recommending next steps</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"56 4","pages":"32-43"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.70046","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.70046","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scientific research increasingly involves large, multidisciplinary teams networked across multiple institutions to develop new technologies. Despite the rise of complex research networks and big team science, there has been too little analysis to date of the ethical challenges facing these networks. The extensive literature on the ethical issues confronting individual researchers and small teams (the microlevel) and on the larger societal challenges flowing from research and new technology (the macrolevel) leaves a troubling gap in between, at the mesolevel of the research network involved in big team science. Yet the ability of complex networks to conduct research ethically—which is essential if the results are to be deemed reliable and trustworthy—depends on recognizing the ethical issues that emerge at this intermediate network level, identifying the values that should guide networks in addressing those issues, and equipping research leaders to build a culture supporting the ethical conduct of research across the laboratories and institutions that comprise the network. This paper calls out the problem, analyzing the gap and recommending next steps.

填补研究伦理的网络缺口:大团队科学中的大规模伦理问题分析。
科学研究越来越多地涉及跨多个机构联网的大型多学科团队,以开发新技术。尽管复杂的研究网络和大型团队科学正在兴起,但迄今为止,对这些网络面临的伦理挑战的分析太少了。关于个体研究人员和小团队所面临的伦理问题(微观层面)和来自研究和新技术的更大的社会挑战(宏观层面)的大量文献在涉及大团队科学的研究网络的中观层面留下了令人不安的鸿沟。然而,复杂网络进行道德研究的能力——如果结果被认为是可靠和可信的,这是必不可少的——取决于认识到在这个中间网络层面出现的道德问题,确定应该指导网络解决这些问题的价值观,并使研究领导者能够建立一种文化,支持组成网络的实验室和机构的道德研究行为。本文指出了存在的问题,分析了差距,并提出了下一步的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书