This article presents results from the national survey conducted in 2018 for the project
Research Integrity in Norway
(RINO). A total of 31,206 questionnaires were sent out to Norwegian researchers ...by e-mail, and 7291 responses were obtained. In this paper, we analyse the survey data to determine attitudes towards and the prevalence of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) and contrast this with attitudes towards and the prevalence of the more questionable research practices (QRPs) surveyed. Our results show a relatively low percentage of self-reported FFPs (0.2–0.3%), while the number of researchers who report having committed one of the QRPs during the last three years reached a troublesome 40%. The article also presents a ranking of the perceived severity of FFP and QRPs among Norwegian researchers. Overall, there is a widespread normative consensus, where FFP is considered more troublesome than QRPs.
Forskningsetisk skjønn angår alle forskere. Denne boka diskuterer en rekke viktige problemstillinger om hvordan skjønn bør utøves. Forskningsetisk skjønn angår alle forskere og mange som på andre ...måter er involvert i forskning. Forskeren bruker skjønn i valg av forskningsspørsmål, metode, fremferd overfor dem det forskes på, sikring av informasjon og formidling av forskningsresultater. Forskningsetiske komiteer og forskningsforvaltning har et spesielt ansvar for både selv å utøve og å tilrettelegge for utøvelse av godt forskningsetisk skjønn. Bidragene i denne boka tematiserer ulike etiske problemstillinger som oppstår i forskning og i forholdet mellom forskning, forskningsvurdering og samfunn. Hva kan og bør tillegges skjønn? Hva kreves av godt skjønn? Og hvordan kan man unngå vilkårlighet i skjønnsutøvelsen? God forskningsetisk skjønnsutøvelse støttes av refleksjon rundt hva skjønnsutøvelsen består i, og hva som skal til for å hjelpe den frem. Boka har som ambisjon å bidra til slik refleksjon. Bidragsytere er Anette Brunovskis, Kristine Bærøe, Jakob Elster, Kjersti Fjørtoft, Hallvard J. Fossheim, Helene Ingierd, Deborah H. Oughton, Knut W. Ruyter og Torkild Vinther.
This anthology addresses ethical challenges that arise within the field of Internet research. Among the issues discussed in the book are the following: When is voluntary informed consent from ...research subjects required in using the Internet as a data source? How may researchers secure the privacy of research subjects in a landscape where the traditional public/private distinction is blurred and re-identification is a recurring threat? What are the central ethical and legal aspects of Internet research for individuals, groups, and society?
"This anthology examines various ethical issues related to conflicts of interest in research and raises fundamental questions about the role of research in society. In recent years, researchers and ...others have expressed concern on several occasions about how research has been conducted or used for political or economic gain, where outcomes of research have been called into question and accusations of rigging or poor quality have been leveled. “Conflict of interest” is a term from research ethics that can help clarify what is at the core of many of these cases. Questions posed and explored in this anthology include: What exactly is a conflict of interest within the context of research? Is the ideal of pure, unbiased objectivity even realistic? To what degree can transparency remediate challenges associated with conflicts of interest? The objective with this collection of chapters is to encourage reflection and discourse about the ethical principles and norms that insure quality and integrity in research. The anthology will be of interest to researchers in particular, and all others concerned with ethics in research."
"Denne antologien belyser ulike forskningsetiske aspekter ved interessekonflikter i forskning, og reiser grunnleggende spørsmål om forskningens rolle i samfunnet. I løpet av de siste årene har forskere og andre i flere tilfeller uttrykt bekymring over hvordan forskning styres og brukes av politiske og økonomiske interesser, der forskningsresultater trekkes i tvil, og der det fremmes anklager om fusk eller dårlig kvalitet. «Interessekonflikter» er et begrep fra forskningsetikken som kan bidra til å avklare hva som står på spill i mange av disse sakene. Spørsmål som tas opp i antologien, inkluderer: Hva er egentlig interessekonflikter i forskning? Er idealet om interesseløshet realistisk? I hvilken grad kan åpenhet bøte på utfordringene knyttet til interessekonflikter? Målet er at tekstene i denne boken skal bidra til refleksjon og debatt om de etiske prinsippene og normene som skal verne om forskningens kvalitet og troverdighet. Antologien henvender seg til forskere og en bredere offentlighet som er opptatt av forskningsetiske spørsmål. Bidragsyterne er forskere, hovedsakelig innenfor naturvitenskapelige og teknologiske fag."
This article furnishes a philosophical background for the current debate about responsibility and culpability for war crimes by referring to ideas from three important just war thinkers: Augustine, ...Francisco de Vitoria, and Michael Walzer. It combines lessons from these three thinkers with perspectives on current problems in the ethics of war, distinguishes between legal culpability, moral culpability, and moral responsibility, and stresses that even lower-ranking soldiers must in many cases assume moral responsibility for their acts, even though they are part of a military hierarchy and act under orders. The questions addressed in this article are arguably among the hardest and most muddled in military ethics and deserve close philosophical analysis and scrutiny.
Research following the terrorist attacks July 22nd 2011 has been especially challenging, due to the extreme nature of the events and the trauma for those involved; both directly as victims and ...indirectly as family, relatives and friends.
Armed intervention for humanitarian reasons fulfills the first two criteria for a just war -- just cause & right intention -- but not necessarily the third -- legitimate authority. Procedural & moral ...arguments for the importance of having legitimate authority for a just war are explored. The need for predictable & accepted procedures, transparency, & openness to advice support the procedural criterion for legitimate authority, while needs for a common good motivation, moral & political competence, & the willingness to accept wide responsibility support the moral criterion for legitimate authority. When the intervention is for humanitarian purposes, the legitimate authority is not the one of the society in need, which raises thorny issues. Thus, the legitimate authority must be widely accepted by other countries, as the UN Security Council is. Such wars cannot be undertaken for national interests, even though those risking life & limb in such actions might be more willing to make the sacrifice for national interests. References. M. Pflum
PDF
