ArticleThe Hastings Center report
Mapping the Scientific Mesolevel: Where Are We Aiming?
Article in The Hastings Center report. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Susan Wolf et al.'s article "Filling the Network Gap in Research Ethics: Analyzing Ethical Issues at Scale in Big Team Science" aims to provide analysis of ethics at the level of scientific teams. But is the emphasis on formal teams the appropriate target? In this commentary, I argue that we ought to take a much broader view, looking at the "interstitial spaces" of scientific research, including the informal networks of power and esteem that shape scientific careers, the formation and function of large teams, receipt of funding, and publication. I claim that these informal networks do as much, if not more than, formal organizing efforts in structuring scientific inquiry and norms. I conclude that an ethics of team science will be richer, more rigorous, and more effective if it treats the culture of science as a central object of study and then asks which kinds of formal organizing principles best promote and protect our ethical commitments.
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.