This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Rier, D. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Work Setting, Publication, and Scientific Responsibility

Bar-Ilan University

Semistructured interviews (N = 61) with toxic exposure epidemiologists indicate that those in government settings (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], state health departments, and National Institutes of Health [NIH]) were more aware of and responsive to societal consequences of their publications than were those in universities. The NIH data were surprising, given NIH's ivory tower image, but in part appear to stem from a broad trend toward greater accountability in science. Other worksite influences included "institutional voice": epidemiologists from NIH or CDC were aware of speaking in the "voice of the government." There was also limited evidence suggesting the importance of the local unit environment: investigators in the same research unit often reported being influenced by the tone set by the unit chief and colleagues. This preliminary study suggests that work setting influences how epidemiologists define and execute their ethical responsibilities toward social consequences of their work, and it generates questions and five hypotheses for future research.

Key Words: toxic exposure epidemiology • work setting • scientific responsibility • scientific publication • media

Science Communication, Vol. 24, No. 4, 420-457 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547003024004002


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?