Scientific research is a moral duty

Biomedical research is so important that there is a positive moral obligation to pursue it and to participate in it Science is under attack. In Europe, America, and Australasia in particular, scientists are objects of suspicion and are on the defensive.i “Frankenstein science”5-8 is a phrase never f...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Harris, John (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2005
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2005, Volume: 31, Issue: 4, Pages: 242-248
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Description
Summary:Biomedical research is so important that there is a positive moral obligation to pursue it and to participate in it Science is under attack. In Europe, America, and Australasia in particular, scientists are objects of suspicion and are on the defensive.i “Frankenstein science”5-8 is a phrase never far from the lips of those who take exception to some aspect of science or indeed some supposed abuse by scientists. We should not, however, forget the powerful obligation there is to undertake, support, and participate in scientific research, particularly biomedical research, and the powerful moral imperative that underpins these obligations. Now it is more imperative than ever to articulate and explain these obligations and to do so is the subject and the object of this paper. Let me present the question in its starkest form: is there a moral obligation to undertake, support and even to participate in serious scientific research? If there is, does that obligation require not only that beneficial research be undertaken but also that “we”, as individuals and “we” as societies be willing to support and even participate in research where necessary? Thus far the overwhelming answer given to this question has been “no”, and research has almost universally been treated with suspicion and even hostility by the vast majority of all those concerned with the ethics and regulation of research. The so called “precautionary approach”9 sums up this attitude, requiring dangers to be considered more likely and more serious than benefits, and assuming that no sane person would or should participate in research unless they had a pressing personal reason for so doing, or unless they were motivated by a totally impersonal altruism. International agreements and protocols—for example, the Declaration of Helsinki10 and the CIOMS Guidelines11—have been directed principally at …
ISSN:1473-4257
Contains:Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.011973