ArticleThe Hastings Center report
Whose Responsibility? Research Ethics, Integrity, and Governance in Networked Science.
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
Large, multi-institutional research networks pose genuine challenges for accountability, authorship, data sharing, mentorship, reproducibility, trust, and governance. In responding to the article "Filling the Network Gap in Research Ethics: Analyzing Ethical Issues at Scale in Big Team Science," by Susan Wolf et al., this commentary welcomes attention to those challenges but argues that labeling them as a new domain of research ethics requires more conceptual and normative precision. The article moves unevenly among research ethics, responsible conduct of research, bioethics, organizational theory, and responsible innovation while offering a definition of network ethics that is insufficiently differentiated from existing frameworks. Many examples cited are better understood as responsible conduct of research and research integrity problems amplified by scale, institutional plurality, and network topology. A persuasive account of network ethics must specify its unit of analysis, distinguish ethical from managerial and procedural problems, and identify the principles, duties, and accountability structures that justify a distinct framework. This commentary therefore recommends reframing the agenda as ethical governance and responsible conduct of network research at scale.
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.