Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 575
Rev Chilena Infectol ; 37(1): 64-68, 2020 Feb.
Artículo en Español | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32730402


We remember Lazaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) mainly for his controversy with Needham over spontaneous generation, but he was a man of multiple scientific activities in the fields of biology, mineralogy, physics, mathematics and… volcanology! Called "the biologist of biologists", he developed a series of investigations about reproduction of amphibian, in one of them -Experiences in service to the history of the generation of animals and plants- we have found horrific experiments with frogs, including severe and useless mutilation of males, in order to interrupt its copulation with females, acts he describes as "barbaric", and we estimate inadmissible in the ecclesiastic man he was, even in an epoch in which animals were considered "anima vili" (something without value). A brief review of the use of animals in laboratories shows significant advances in the ethical regulations for this practice, but we believe that these achievements are not enough.

Bienestar del Animal , Laboratorios , Bienestar del Animal/historia , Bienestar del Animal/normas , Animales , Animales de Laboratorio , Femenino , Historia del Siglo XVIII , Laboratorios/ética , Masculino , Reproducción/fisiología , Ciencia/ética , Ciencia/historia
PLoS One ; 15(5): e0230961, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32374737


Is it appropriate for scientists to engage in political advocacy? Some political critics of scientists argue that scientists have become partisan political actors with self-serving financial agendas. However, most scientists strongly reject this view. While social scientists have explored the effects of science politicization on public trust in science, little empirical work directly examines the drivers of scientists' interest in and willingness to engage in political advocacy. Using a natural experiment involving the U.S. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF-GRF), we causally estimate for the first time whether scientists who have received federal science funding are more likely to engage in both science-related and non-science-related political behaviors. Comparing otherwise similar individuals who received or did not receive NSF support, we find that scientists' preferences for political advocacy are not shaped by receiving government benefits. Government funding did not impact scientists' support of the 2017 March for Science nor did it shape the likelihood that scientists donated to either Republican or Democratic political groups. Our results offer empirical evidence that scientists' political behaviors are not motivated by self-serving financial agendas. They also highlight the limited capacity of even generous government support programs to increase civic participation by their beneficiaries.

Conducta/ética , Financiación Gubernamental , Personal de Laboratorio/ética , Política , Política Ambiental/economía , Política Ambiental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Financiación Gubernamental/ética , Financiación Gubernamental/normas , Programas de Gobierno/economía , Programas de Gobierno/ética , Programas de Gobierno/normas , Política de Salud/economía , Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Personal de Laboratorio/economía , Personal de Laboratorio/psicología , Mala Conducta Profesional/ética , Política Pública , Sector Público/ética , Publicaciones/economía , Publicaciones/ética , Publicaciones/legislación & jurisprudencia , Publicaciones/normas , Ciencia/economía , Ciencia/ética , Confianza , Estados Unidos
Acta bioeth ; 26(1): 101-106, mayo 2020. tab, graf
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS | ID: biblio-1114603


As declared by the United Nations, 2019 is the International Year of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. Accordingly, an innovative new Periodic Table of Chemical Elements and Ethics [PETE] has been developed as an educational tool for secondary and university STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education. The tool is designed to be used in a case-based approache that is feasible to both individual and small group learners. Specifically, with the new periodic table, STEM becomes aligned with STSE (Science and Technology on Society and Environment), laying a curricular pathway for integrating discussions of ethics into the teaching of chemistry. Presented is the table, as well as sources for pairable ethics cases, and guidance for teachers to create curriculum which facilitates connections between ethics, chemistry, and society.

Según lo declarado por las Naciones Unidas, 2019 es el Año Internacional de la Tabla Periódica de Elementos Químicos. En consecuencia, se ha desarrollado una nueva e innovadora tabla periódica de elementos químicos y ética [PETE] como una herramienta educativa para la educación secundaria y universitaria STEM (Ciencia, Tecnología, Ingeniería y Matemáticas). La herramienta está diseñada para usarse en un enfoque basado en casos que sea factible tanto para estudiantes individuales como para grupos pequeños. Específicamente, con la nueva tabla periódica, STEM se alinea con STSE (Ciencia y Tecnología en Sociedad y Medio Ambiente), estableciendo una vía curricular para integrar las discusiones de ética en la enseñanza de la química. Se presenta la tabla, así como las fuentes de casos de ética que se pueden pactar, y orientación para que los maestros creen un plan de estudios que facilite las conexiones entre la ética, la química y la sociedad.

Como declarado pelas Nações Unidas, 2019 é o Ano Internacional da Tabela Periódica de Elementos Químicos. Portanto, uma inovadora e nova Tabela Periódica de Elementos Químicos e Ética (PETE, sigla em inglês) foi desenvolvida como uma ferramenta educacional para educação STEM (sigla em inglês para Ciência, Tecnologia, Engenharia e Matemática) secundária e universitária. A ferramenta é elaborada para ser usada em uma abordagem baseada em casos, viável tanto para aprendizagem individual como de pequenos grupos. Especificamente, com a nova tabela periódica, STEM se alinha com STSE (sigla em inglês para Ciência e Tecnologia na Sociedade e Ambiente), estabelecendo uma via curricular para integrar discussões de ética no ensino de química. Apresenta-se a tabela, bem como fontes de casos éticos pareados, e orientação para professores criarem um currículo que facilite conexões entre ética, química e sociedade.

Ciencia/educación , Química/educación , Química/ética , Tecnología Educacional , Educación/ética , Periodicidad , Ciencia/ética , Curriculum , Educación Primaria y Secundaria , Educación Superior
PLoS One ; 15(4): e0231929, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32324823


President Trump and his administration have been regarded by news outlets and scholars as one of the most hostile administrations towards scientists and their work. However, no study to-date has empirically measured how federal scientists perceive the Trump administration with respect to their scientific work. In 2018, we distributed a survey to over 63,000 federal scientists from 16 federal agencies to assess their perception of scientific integrity. Here we discuss the results of this survey for a subset of these agencies: Department of Interior (DOI) agencies (the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the US Geological Survey, and the National Park Service); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We focus our analysis to 10 key questions fitting within three core categories that relate to perceptions of integrity in science. Additionally, we analyzed responses across agencies and compare responses in the 2018 survey to prior year surveys of federal scientists with similar survey questions. Our results indicate that federal scientists perceive losses of scientific integrity under the Trump Administration. Perceived loss of integrity in science was greater at the DOI and EPA where federal scientists ranked incompetent and untrustworthy leadership as top barriers to science-based decision-making, but this was not the case at the CDC, FDA, and NOAA where scientists positively associated leadership with scientific integrity. We also find that reports of political interference in scientific work and adverse work environments were higher at EPA and FWS in 2018 than in prior years. We did not find similar results at the CDC and FDA. These results suggest that leadership, positive work environments, and clear and comprehensive scientific integrity policies and infrastructure within agencies play important roles in how federal scientists perceive their agency's scientific integrity.

Gobierno Federal , Ciencia/ética , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Humanos , Percepción , Políticas , Confianza , Estados Unidos
N Z Med J ; 132(1504): 88-94, 2019 10 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31647799


Across the world highly educated, science-literate parents are refusing to have their children vaccinated against contagious diseases. Decades of international, peer-reviewed climate science is being dismissed as institutional conspiracy. Activists troll and harass scientists who come to unfavourable conclusions in pet areas such as genome modification, childhood memory recall, chronic fatigue syndrome and even the hazards of smoking. And somewhat legitimising this behaviour are rising numbers of populist leaders who pour scorn on whichever science is inconvenient to their popularity. Science denial is tangible on a day-to-day basis and has measurable detriment to health and education. This article outlines the key research underpinning its ideological, psychological and pragmatic motivations.

Cambio Climático , Negación en Psicología , Motivación , Ciencia/educación , Vacunación/psicología , Humanos , Nueva Zelanda , Formulación de Políticas , Ciencia/ética
Sci Eng Ethics ; 25(6): 1633-1656, 2019 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31620956


In the applied sciences and in engineering there is often a significant overlap between work at universities and in industry. For the individual scholar, this may lead to serious conflicts when working on joint university-industry projects. Differences in goals, such as the university's aim to disseminate knowledge while industry aims to appropriate knowledge, might lead to complicated situations and conflicts of interest. The detailed cases of two electrical engineers and two architects working at two different universities of technology illustrate the kinds of problems individual scholars face in university-business collaborations. These cases are based on qualitative interviews and additional data and demonstrate that, while value conflicts emerge on the organizational level, it is primarily the individual researcher who must deal with such conflicts. This analysis adds to existing studies in two ways: first, it explicitly addresses normative issues framed in terms of ethical and social values, thereby going beyond the common social-science perspective of university-business collaboration. Secondly, it provides qualitative insights, thereby identifying details and issues not apparent in quantitative studies. In particular, it is evident that university-industry collaborations are prone to value conflicts not only in research but also in education and job training.

Arquitectura/ética , Conducta Cooperativa , Ingeniería/ética , Industrias , Valores Sociales , Tecnología/ética , Universidades , Comercio , Conflicto de Intereses , Educación Profesional , Ética , Ética en Investigación , Objetivos , Humanos , Conocimiento , Investigadores/ética , Ciencia/ética
Rev. bioét. derecho ; (45): 59-71, mar. 2019.
Artículo en Español | IBECS | ID: ibc-177375


Este artículo pretende contribuir al debate sobre la objetividad de la ciencia, la independencia y la libertad académica de quienes investigan. A partir de una breve panorámica sobre los factores que moldean la investigación en salud pública, se pretende iniciar una reflexión desde la perspectiva ética sobre la libertad de los y las investigadoras a la hora de realizar su investigación -las fuerzas externas e internas que la moldean- y el propósito social de su labor investigadora, que debe ser el avance del conocimiento para aumentar el bienestar social y la salud de las poblaciones

This article aims to contribute to the debate on the objectivity of science, independence and academic freedom of researchers. Based on a brief overview of the factors that shape public health research, we intend to initiate a reflection from the ethical perspective on the freedom of researchers when conducting their research -the external and internal forces that shape it- and the social purpose of their research work, which should be the advancement of knowledge to increase social welfare and the health of populations

Aquest article pretén contribuir al debat sobre l'objectivitat de la ciència, la independència i la llibertat acadèmica dels qui investiguen. A partir d'una breu panoràmica sobre els factors que modelen la recerca en salut pública, es pretén iniciar una reflexió des de la perspectiva ètica sobre la llibertat dels i les investigadores a l'hora de realitzar la seva recerca -les forces externes i internes que la modelen- i el propòsit social de la seva labor investigadora, que ha de ser el progrés del coneixement a fi d’augmentar el benestar social i la salut de les poblacions

Humanos , Apoyo a la Investigación como Asunto/ética , Ética en Investigación , Libertad , Salud Pública , Bienestar Social/ética , Responsabilidad Social , Comités de Ética en Investigación/ética , Política Pública , Ciencia/ética
Sci Eng Ethics ; 25(2): 327-355, 2019 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30810892


A Scientific Integrity Consortium developed a set of recommended principles and best practices that can be used broadly across scientific disciplines as a mechanism for consensus on scientific integrity standards and to better equip scientists to operate in a rapidly changing research environment. The two principles that represent the umbrella under which scientific processes should operate are as follows: (1) Foster a culture of integrity in the scientific process. (2) Evidence-based policy interests may have legitimate roles to play in influencing aspects of the research process, but those roles should not interfere with scientific integrity. The nine best practices for instilling scientific integrity in the implementation of these two overarching principles are (1) Require universal training in robust scientific methods, in the use of appropriate experimental design and statistics, and in responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with the training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists. (2) Strengthen scientific integrity oversight and processes throughout the research continuum with a focus on training in ethics and conduct. (3) Encourage reproducibility of research through transparency. (4) Strive to establish open science as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise. (5) Develop and implement educational tools to teach communication skills that uphold scientific integrity. (6) Strive to identify ways to further strengthen the peer review process. (7) Encourage scientific journals to publish unanticipated findings that meet standards of quality and scientific integrity. (8) Seek harmonization and implementation among journals of rapid, consistent, and transparent processes for correction and/or retraction of published papers. (9) Design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria that recognize and reward the highest standards of integrity in scientific research.

Investigación Biomédica/ética , Consenso , Ingeniería/ética , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Edición/ética , Ciencia/ética , Mala Conducta Científica , Acceso a la Información , Cultura , Educación Profesional , Ética en Investigación , Humanos , Revisión por Pares , Políticas , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Investigación