Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19434517›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2009

Science, democracy, and the right to research.

Mark B Brown, David H Guston

Abstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Geoengineering as Collective Experimentation.Science and engineering ethics · 2016
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Editors' overview: forbidding science?Science and engineering ethics · 2009
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mark B BrownDepartment of Government, California State University Sacramento, Sacramento, CA,95819-6089, USA. mark.brown@csus.edu
David H Guston

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Debates over the politicization of science have led some to claim that scientists have or should have a "right to research." This article examines the political meaning and implications of the right to research with respect to different historical conceptions of rights. The more common "liberal" view sees rights as protections against social and political interference. The "republican" view, in contrast, conceives rights as claims to civic membership. Building on the republican view of rights, this article conceives the right to research as embedding science more firmly and explicitly within society, rather than sheltering science from society. From this perspective, all citizens should enjoy a general right to free inquiry, but this right to inquiry does not necessarily encompass all scientific research. Because rights are most reliably protected when embedded within democratic culture and institutions, claims for a right to research should be considered in light of how the research in question contributes to democracy. By putting both research and rights in a social context, this article shows that the claim for a right to research is best understood, not as a guarantee for public support of science, but as a way to initiate public deliberation and debate about which sorts of inquiry deserve public support.

Indexed as

Bioethical IssuesBiomedical ResearchEthical TheoryEthics, ResearchGovernment RegulationHuman RightsDemocracyFinancing, GovernmentFreedomHistory, 18th CenturyHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHumansPoliticsSocial ResponsibilitySocial Values

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.