Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:55:25.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Openness versus Secrecy in Scientific Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

David B. Resnik
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Openness is one of the most important principles in scientific inquiry, but there are many good reasons for maintaining secrecy in research, ranging from the desire to protect priority, credit, and intellectual property, to the need to safeguard the privacy of research participants or minimize threats to national or international security. This article examines the clash between openness and secrecy in science in light of some recent developments in information technology, business, and politics, and makes some practical suggestions for resolving conflicts between openness and secrecy.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , October 2006, pp. 135 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

References

Angell, M. 2004. The Truth about Drug Companies. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990).Google Scholar
Burke, J. 1995. The Day the Universe Changed. New York: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
Coleman, C.; Menikoff, J.; Goldner, J.; and Dubler, N. (eds.). 2006. Ethics and the Regulation of Research with Human Subjects. Dayton, Ohio: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
DeAngelis, C. et al. 2004. “Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,” New England Journal of Medicine 351: 1250–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services. 2004. HIPAA privacy rule: information for researchers, updated August 4, 2004. Available at: http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_08.asp#8a Accessed: April 6, 2006.Google Scholar
Dresser, R. 2001. When Science Offers Salvation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1987. Harm to Others. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, F. and Shook, R. 1993. Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Fox, R. and DeMarco, J. 2000. Moral Reasoning, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Giles, J. 2006. “Stacking the deck,” Nature 440: 270–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godlee, F. 2002. “Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit,” Journal of the American Medical Association. 287: 2762–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, A. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. 1988. Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, J. 2002. “Privacy rule creates bottleneck for U.S. biomedical researchers, Science 295: 1206–1207.Google Scholar
Kintish, E. and Mervis, J. 2006. “A budget with big winners and losers,” Science 311: 762–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the Private Interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1984. Science and Values. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Levine, R. 1988. Ethics and the Regulation of Clinical Research. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Marshall, E. 2002. “Data sharing: clear cut rules prove elusive,” Science 295: 1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Munthe, C. and Welin, S. 1996. “The morality of scientific openness,” Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4): 411–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism: Confronting the Dual Use Dilemma. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Newton, I. 1676. Letter to Robert Hooke. February 5, 1676.Google Scholar
Rennie, D. 2003. “Editorial peer review: its development and rationale,” In: Godlee, F. and Jefferson, T. (eds.), Peer Review in the Health Sciences, 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 1–14.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. 1996. “Social epistemology and the ethics of research,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 27: 566–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Resnik, D. 1998. The Ethics of Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. 2003. “A pluralistic account of intellectual property,” The Journal of Business Ethics 46: 319–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, D. 2004. Owning the Genome. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. In Press. The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, D. and Shamoo, A. 2005. “Bioterrorism and the responsible conduct of biomedical research,” Drug Development Research 63: 121–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosengard, A.; Liu, Y.; Nie, Z.; and Jimenez, R. 2002. “Variola virus immune evasion design: expression of a highly effi cient inhibitor of human complement,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 8808–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shamoo, A. and Resnik, D. 2003. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
United States Constitution. 1787. Available at: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt. Accessed: March 28, 2006.Google Scholar
Wein, L. and Liu, Y. 2005. “Analyzing a bioterror attack on the food supply: the case of botulinum toxin in milk,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 9984–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, R. 2005. “Report warns of threat to milk supply,” The Washington Post (June 29, 2005): A8.Google Scholar
Zarin, D.; Tse, T.; and Ide, N. 2005. “Trial registration at clinicaltrials.gov between May and October 2005,” New England Journal of Medicine 353: 2779–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed