Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Academic Cheating
- Part II Academic Excuses and Fairness
- Part III Authorship and Credit
- Part IV Confidentiality’s Limits
- Part V Data Analysis, Reporting, and Sharing
- Part VI Designing Research
- Part VII Fabricating Data
- Part VIII Human Subjects
- Part IX Personnel Decisions
- Part X Reviewing and Editing
- Part XI Science for Hire and Conflict of Interest
- 63 The Power of Industry (Money) in Influencing Science
- 64 The Impact of Personal Expectations and Biases in Preparing Expert Testimony
- 65 The Fragility of Truth in Expert Testimony
- 66 A Surprising Request from a Grant Monitor
- 67 Whoever Pays the Piper Calls the Tune
- 68 How to Protect Scientific Integrity under Social and Political Pressure
- 69 Commentary to Part XI
- Epilogue Why Is Ethical Behavior Challenging?
- Index
- References
68 - How to Protect Scientific Integrity under Social and Political Pressure
Applied Day-Care Research between Science and Policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Academic Cheating
- Part II Academic Excuses and Fairness
- Part III Authorship and Credit
- Part IV Confidentiality’s Limits
- Part V Data Analysis, Reporting, and Sharing
- Part VI Designing Research
- Part VII Fabricating Data
- Part VIII Human Subjects
- Part IX Personnel Decisions
- Part X Reviewing and Editing
- Part XI Science for Hire and Conflict of Interest
- 63 The Power of Industry (Money) in Influencing Science
- 64 The Impact of Personal Expectations and Biases in Preparing Expert Testimony
- 65 The Fragility of Truth in Expert Testimony
- 66 A Surprising Request from a Grant Monitor
- 67 Whoever Pays the Piper Calls the Tune
- 68 How to Protect Scientific Integrity under Social and Political Pressure
- 69 Commentary to Part XI
- Epilogue Why Is Ethical Behavior Challenging?
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction: The Thesis
Policy-relevant research should meet strict scientific criteria, especially when explosive political or social topics are involved. It is therefore desirable that decisions about funding of research proposals as well as supervision of testing the research hypotheses and the implementation of the research design always are the responsibility of an independent scientific forum. Obviously, policy makers and practitioners should be allowed to leave their mark on the formulation of the broad research question because they are the major participants of the discussion about the implications and applications of the research results. But applied scientific research is first and foremost aimed at the growth of knowledge and the search for truth, and should be executed independently of the interests of stakeholders, policy makers, and politicians; otherwise research and researchers risk the chance of being corrupted.
This thesis is illustrated by means of a concrete case study related to our research on quality of day care in the Netherlands. The House of Representatives initiated this study, which was executed by three research groups united in the Dutch Consortium for Research into Child Care (NCKO) (Nederlands Consortium Kinderopvang Onderzoek, 2005). Ethically responsible participation in the planned follow-up study of the NCKO became impossible because of a boycott by one of the most powerful stakeholders in the domain of day care, and by the ambiguous role of the ministerial authority that commissioned the research. The Leiden research team refused to bow to the social and political pressures and left the consortium, leaving behind several million dollars of grant money.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain SciencesCase Studies and Commentaries, pp. 212 - 216Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
- 1
- Cited by