Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making Researchers Moral

Why Trustworthiness Requires More Than Ethics Guidelines and Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethics, Law and Governance of Biobanking

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 14))

  • 1096 Accesses

Abstract

In this paper we discuss how the individual researcher’s moral responsibility for her work relates to research ethics as an extra-legal regulatory framework.

This chapter has been already published as: Johnsson L., Eriksson S., Helgesson G. and Hansson M.G. 2014. Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review. Research Ethics 10:29–46. We kindly thank the publisher for allowing the reprint.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anspach, R.R., and N. Mizrachi. 2006. The field worker’s fields: ethics, ethnography and medical sociology. Sociology of Health and Illness 28(6): 713–731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bosk, C.L., and R.G. De Vries. 2004. Bureaucracies of mass deception: institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 595: 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, A.M. 1978. Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hastings Center Report 8(6): 21–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, C.H., and M.C. Bouesseau. 2008. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ethics 9(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Woods, M., et al. 2007. Beyond “misunderstanding”: written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Social Science and Medicine 65(11): 2212–2222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ducournau, P., and R. Strand. 2009. Trust, distrust and co-production: the relationship between research biobanks and donors. In The ethics of research biobanking, ed. J.H. Solbakk, S. Holm, and B. Hofmann. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, S., et al. 1996. Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics 2(1): 89–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, K.L., et al. 2011. Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers. Public Health Genomics 14(6): 337–345.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, S. 2010. What a strange subject bioethics is. IAB. Available at http://www.anis.org.br/Arquivos/Textos/iabnews-june2010.pdf. Accessed 6 November 2012.

  • Eriksson, S., et al. 2007. Being, doing, and knowing: developing ethical competence in health care. Journal of Academic Ethics 5: 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, S., et al. 2008. Do ethical guidelines give guidance? A critical examination of eight ethics regulations. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17(1): 15–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fistein, E., and S. Quilligan. 2011. In the lion’s den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 38(4): 224–227.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldworth, A. 1999. Informed consent in the genetic age. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8(3): 393–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halavais, A. 2011. Social science: open up online research. Nature 480(7376): 174–175.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hales, B.M., and P.J. Pronovost. 2006. The checklist—a tool for error management and performance improvement. Journal of Critical Care 21(3): 231–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M.A. 2005. The importance of trust for ethics, law, and public policy. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14(2): 156–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, M.G. 2005. Building on relationships of trust in biobank research. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(7): 415–418.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, A.B. 2009. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. New England Journal of Medicine 360(5): 491–499.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hedgecoe, A.M. 2012. Trust and regulatory organisations: the role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review. Social Studies of Science 42(5): 662–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer, K. 2003. ‘Science is really needed—that’s all I know’: informed consent and the non-verbal practices of collecting blood for genetic research in northern Sweden. New Genetics and Society 22(3): 229–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer, K. 2008. The ethics of research biobanking: a critical review of the literature. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 25: 429–452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer, K., et al. 2005a. Studying ethics as policy: the naming and framing of moral problems in genetic research. Current Anthropology 46 Supplement.:S71–S90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer, K., et al. 2005b. The ethics of research using biobanks: reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent. Archives of Internal Medicine 165(1): 97–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoff, D. 2003. Varför etiska kommittéer?. Lund: Department of Sociology, Lund University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höglund, A.T., et al. 2010. The role of guidelines in ethical competence-building: perceptions among research nurses and physicians. Clinical Ethics 5: 95–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsson, L., et al. 2012. Adequate trust avails, mistaken trust matters: on the moral responsibility of doctors as proxies for patients’ trust in biobank research. Bioethics. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01977.x.

  • Kerrison, S., and A.M. Pollock. 2005. The reform of UK research ethics committees: throwing the baby out with the bath water? Journal of Medical Ethics 31(8): 487–489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klitzman, R., and P.S. Appelbaum. 2012. Research ethics. To protect human subjects, review what was done, not proposed. Science 335(6076): 1576–1577.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koski, G. 2007. Healthcare research: can patients trust physician scientists? In The trust crisis in healthcare: causes, consequences, and cures, ed. D.A. Shore. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manson, N.C., and O. O’Neill. 2007. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B.C., et al. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435(7043): 737–738.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MCGuinness, S. 2008. Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority. Journal of Medical Ethics 34(9): 695–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., and M. Boulton. 2007. Changing constructions of informed consent: qualitative research and complex social worlds. Social Science and Medicine 65(11): 2199–2211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, A.E., and E.M. Spencer. 2001. Organization ethics or compliance: which will articulate values for the United States’ healthcare system? HEC Forum 13(4): 329–343.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E., and R. Dingwall. 2007. Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science and Medicine 65(11): 2223–2234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Doherty, K.C., et al. 2011. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Social Science and Medicine 73(3): 367–374.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. 2002. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J. 2002. Two deaths and two lessons: is it time to review the structure and function of research ethics committees? Journal of Medical Ethics 28(1): 1–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sokol, D.K. 2009. Ethics man. Rethinking ward rounds. BMJ 338: b879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, L. 2012. Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sztompka, P. 1998. Trust, distrust and two paradoxes of democracy. European Journal of Social Theory 1(1): 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright, S.P., et al. 2006. Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory. Sociology of Health and Illness 28(6): 732–748.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wicherts, J.M. 2011. Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature 480(7375): 7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association. 1964. The declaration of Helsinki. Helsinki: World Medical Association Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association. 2008. The declaration of Helsinki. Helsinki: World Medical Association Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding: The work of LJ has been funded by the IMI-funded project BTCure [Grant Agreement No. 115142-1]; and the BioBanking and Molecular Resource Infrastructure of Sweden, BBMRI.se.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Linus Johnsson, Stefan Eriksson & Mats G. Hansson

  2. Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden

    Gert Helgesson

Authors
  1. Linus Johnsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Eriksson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gert Helgesson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mats G. Hansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linus Johnsson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Biomedicine, European Academy Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy

    Deborah Mascalzoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Johnsson, L., Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G., Hansson, M.G. (2015). Making Researchers Moral. In: Mascalzoni, D. (eds) Ethics, Law and Governance of Biobanking. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9573-9_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9573-9_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9572-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9573-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation