Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28726028›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018

Should We All be Scientists? Re-thinking Laboratory Research as a Calling.

Louise Bezuidenhout, Nathaniel A Warne

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Louise BezuidenhoutInstitute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, 64 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6PN, UK. louise.bezuidenhout@insis.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4328-3963
Nathaniel A WarneCenter for Theology, Science and Human Flourishing, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
University of Notre Dame · USUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

Templeton Religion Trust TRT0088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years there have been major shifts in how the role of science-and scientists-are understood. The critical examination of scientific expertise within the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) are increasingly eroding notions of the "otherness" of scientists. It would seem to suggest that anyone can be a scientist-when provided with the appropriate training and access to data. In contrast, however, ethnographic evidence from the scientific community tells a different story. Scientists are quick to recognize that not everyone can-or should-be a scientist. Appealing to notions such as "good hands" or "gut feelings", scientists narrate a distinction between good and bad scientists that cannot be reduced to education, access, or opportunity. The key to good science requires scientists to express an intuitive feeling for their discipline, but also that individuals derive considerable personal satisfaction from their work. Discussing this personal joy in-and "fittingness" of-scientific occupations using the fields of STS, ethics and science policy is highly problematic. In this paper we turn to theology discourse to analyze the notion of "callings" as a means of understanding this issue. Callings highlight the identification and examination of individual talents to determine fit occupations for specific persons. Framing science as a calling represents a novel view of research that places the talents and dispositions of individuals and their relationship to the community at the center of flourishing practices.

Indexed as

Career ChoiceComprehensionOccupationsProfessional RoleResearch PersonnelScienceSocial ResponsibilityAptitudeHumansLaboratoriesLaboratory PersonnelProfessional CompetenceTechnologyTheologyBioethicsCallingConductResponsible conduct of researchScience practiceVirtue ethics

Identifiers

PMID28726028
PMCPMC6097068
OpenAlexW2738937211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.