ArticleScience and engineering ethics2009
Democracy, individual rights and the regulation of science.
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 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scientific research and human rights: a response to Kitcher on the limitations of inquiry.Science and engineering ethics · 2014Article
- The problems with forbidding science.Science and engineering ethics · 2009Article
- Constitutional restraints on the regulations of scientific speech and scientific research: commentary on "Democracy, individual rights and the regulation of science".Science and engineering ethics · 2009Article
- Science, democracy, and the right to research.Science and engineering ethics · 2009Article
- Editors' overview: forbidding science?Science and engineering ethics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether the US Constitution guarantees a right to conduct scientific research is a question that has never been squarely addressed by the United States Supreme Court. Similarly, the extent to which the First Amendment protects the right to communicate the results of scientific research is an issue about which there is scant judicial authority. This article suggests that a crucial guidepost for exploring both these uncharted areas of constitutional law should be whether restrictions on scientific research or communication truly implicate fundamental individual rights or instead primarily concern issues of general social welfare-issues that in a democracy are properly decided by the representative branches of government or their delegates, not by the judiciary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19526326What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.