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.
Harvard Medical School, Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Patrick.Taylor@Childrens.Harvard.edu
Patrick L
PL
Taylor
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