Knowledge for Development

Ethics

Science and ethics are inextricably bound together. Science is said to be objective and ethics is subjective as it is linked to personal choices. This dossier deals with the broad range of ethical complexities in science, research design and implementation, selection and use of material, implications of innovative outcomes and the interest of society. In his lead article: Ethics in Science for Development Prof. Michiel Korthals, Head of Department Applied Philosophy, Wageningen University, The Netherlands, discusses ethical dilemmas scientists often face. Prof. Annabel Fossey of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South Africa, in her lead article: Research Ethics and Agricultural Innovations – The Dilemma of Scientists states that since the advent of genetic engineering the view that scientists are, in general, trustworthy and ethically sound, and that agricultural research leading to new technological advances is intrinsically good has been altered, culminating in an ever growing societal interest in agricultural practices and their consequences. Links to publications and downloadable articles and websites of relevant organizations on research ethics with regard to life sciences support this dossier. Prepared by KIT in collaboration with CTA – July 2008; edited by J.A. Francis, CTA & J. Sluijs, KIT

Guiding principles for communicating scientific findings in a manner that promotes objectivity, public trust, and policy relevance have been proposed by Kevin C. Elliott (Michigan State University, US) and David B. Resnik (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, US) . These are based on current ethical, conceptual, and empirical studies of objectivity and conflicts of interest in scientific research. Both conceptual and empirical studies of scientific reasoning have shown that it is unrealistic to prevent policy-relevant scientific research from being influenced by value judgments. Conceptually, the current dispute over an EC report on its regulatory policy for endocrine-disrupting chemicals illustrates how scientists were forced to make value judgments about appropriate standards of evidence when informing public policy. Empirical studies provide further evidence that scientists are unavoidably influenced by a variety of potentially subconscious financial, social, political, and personal interests. The authors conclude that when scientific evidence is inconclusive and major regulatory decisions are at stake, it is unrealistic to think that values can be excluded from scientific reasoning. Thus, efforts to suppress or hide interests or values may actually damage scientific objectivity and public trust, whereas a willingness to bring implicit interests and values into the open may be the best path to promoting good science and policy.   (Environmental Health Perspectives, 01/ 07/2014) 28/07/2014
Read more...
These guidelines describe the type of agreements that can be used in access and benefit sharing in research projects. Their primary audience are scientists working with crop genetic resources and related traditional knowledge in research organisations. They can also be useful for authorities involved in legislative processes on the matter and for local populations who participate in research and development projects dealing with the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity. This publication is based on the experience gained during the implementation of the project ‘In situ/On farm Conservation and Use of Agricultural Biodiversity (Horticultural Crops and Wild Fruit Species) in Central Asia’. (Agrobiodiversity Platform, 12/4/2013)  22/05/2013
Read more...
In this opinion article, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, of the Kagawa University in Japan, argues that the discussion among scientists about the quality of a published paper should be a constant, dynamic process, even beyond the act of publication. According to the author, although there has been an increase in the level of verification by publishers in the first step, the traditional scientific publishing process is still far from being a fail-safe system, seeing how it fails to reveal duplicate submissions. He suggests plant scientists as a community of researchers, reviewers and publishers, must urgently address errors and ethical loopholes to ensure strong and respected publication ecosystem.   http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpls.2013.00485/full(Front. Plant Sci., 04/12/2013) 27/01/2014
Read more...