4.2 Article

The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in Sped up Science: Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-023-10289-w

关键词

COVID-19; Research ethics; Research integrity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated and expanded scientific research, but also highlighted issues regarding ethics, rigor, and integrity. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigor and integrity need improvement.
During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, and implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and made more sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据