ArticleScience and engineering ethics2011
Scientific research and the public trust.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-censorship: should scientific journals decline to publish self-experimentation?Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Beyond what meets the eye: unveiling dynamics of compliance with preventive measures in the COVID-19 era.BMC public health · 2026Article
- A systemic approach to better coordination in science.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Biodegradable Elastomers: Where Is the Solution?Chemistry (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- A moderated mediation analysis of the relationship between psychological capital and professional commitment among teachers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Are researchers allowed to publicly disseminate research findings before journal publication?Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2025Article
- Fairness, Trust, and Well-Being Among Young Adults: Evidence from 2021 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Capturing emergency dispatch address points as geocoding candidates to quantify delimited confidence in residential geolocation.International journal of health geographics · 2023Article
- Improving Public Trust in Biobanking: Roundtable Discussions from the 2021 ISBER Annual Meeting.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2023Article
- Disclosing Conflicts of Interest to Potential Research Participants: Good for Nothing?Ethics & human research · 2023Article
- Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem.Journal for general philosophy of science = Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie · 2023Article
- The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- A Citizen Science Approach to Identifying Indoor Environmental Barriers to Optimal Health for under 5s Experiencing Homelessness in Temporary Accommodation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Safety and Reverence: How Roman Catholic Liturgy Can Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of religion and health · 2021Review
- Consent for publication: Why it matters now more than ever?Skin health and disease · 2021Article
- How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students.Current protocols · 2021Article
- The role of race and scientific trust on support for COVID-19 social distancing measures in the United States.PloS one · 2021Article
- Wired to Doubt: Why People Fear Vaccines and Climate Change and Mistrust Science.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Bridging the Gap Between Science and Practice: Research Collaboration and the Perception of Research Findings.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This essay analyzes the concept of public trust in science and offers some guidance for ethicists, scientists, and policymakers who use this idea defend ethical rules or policies pertaining to the conduct of research. While the notion that public trusts science makes sense in the abstract, it may not be sufficiently focused to support the various rules and policies that authors have tried to derive from it, because the public is not a uniform body with a common set of interests. Well-focused arguments that use public trust to support rules or policies for the conduct of research should specify (a) which public is being referred to (e.g. the general public or a specific public, such as a particular community or group); (b) what this public expects from scientists; (c) how the rule or policy will ensure that these expectations are met; and (d) why is it important to meet these expectations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.