Scientific self-regulation-so good, how can it fail? Commentary on "The problems with forbidding science".
To be a functional alternative to government regulation, self-regulation of science must be credible to both scientists and the public, accountable, ethical, and effective. According to some, serious problems continue in research ethics in the United States despite a rich history of proposed self-regulatory standards and oversight devices. Successful efforts at self-regulation in stem cell research contrast with unsuccessful efforts in research ethics, particularly conflicts of interest. Part of the cause for a lack of success in self-regulation is fragmented, disconnected oversight, and failure to embody genuine scientific and public consensus. To be accountable, credible and effective, self-regulation must be inclusive and multidisciplinary, publicly engaged, sufficiently disinterested, operationally integrated with institutional goals, and must implement a genuine consensus among scientists and the public. The mechanisms of self-regulation must be sufficiently broad in their oversight, and interconnected with other institutional forces and actors, that they do not create fragmented solutions.
Taylor
Patrick L
PL
Harvard Medical School, Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Patrick.Taylor@Childrens.Harvard.edu
D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D032781:Codes of Ethics; D003256:Community Participation; D016265:Conflict of Interest; D032984:Ethics, Research; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D028681:Moral Obligations; D012927:Social Control, Informal; D012945:Social Values; D013234:Stem Cells; D014481:United States