64 resultados para Ethics in Bioart
em Université de Lausanne, Switzerland
Resumo:
Using the lens of positive organizational ethics, we theorized that empathy affects decisions in ethical dilemmas that concern the well-being of not only the organization but also other stakeholders. We hypothesized and found that empathetic managers were less likely to comply with requests by an authority figure to cut the wages of their employees than were non-empathetic managers. However, when an authority figure requested to hold wages constant, empathy did not affect wage cut decisions. These findings imply that empathy can serve as a safeguard for ethical decision making in organizations during trying times without generally undermining organizational effectiveness. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research.
Resumo:
In a 2000 report entitled "Trust in government. Ethics measures in OECD countries," OECD Secretary-General Donald J. Johnston emphasized the fact that public ethics are considered as a keystone of good governance. Moreover, public ethics are a prerequisite to public trust, which is in turn vital not only to any public service, but also to any society in general. At the same time, transparency reforms have flourished over the last few years and have several times been designed as a response to public distrust. Therefore, ethics, transparency and trust are closely linked together in a supposed virtuous circle where transparency works as a factor of better public ethics and leads to more trust in government on the citizens' side. This article explores the links between transparency and levels of trust in 10 countries between 2007 and 2014, using open data indexes and access to information requests as proxies for transparency. A national ranking of transparency, based on requests submitted by citizens to the administration and open data indexes, is then proposed. Key findings show that there is no sharp decline of trust in government in all countries considered in this article, and that transparency and trust in government are not systematically positively associated. Therefore, this article challenges the common assumption, mostly found in the normative literature, about a positive interrelation between the two, where trust in government is conceived as a beneficial effect of administrative transparency.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION: Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.
Resumo:
Since the mid 20th century progress in biomedical science has been punctuated by the emergence of bioethics which has fashioned the moral framework of its application to both research and clinical practice. Can we, however, consider the advent of bioethics as a form of progress marking the advances made in biomedical science with an adequate ethical stamp? The argument put forward in this chapter is based on the observation that, far from being a mark of progess, the development of bioethics runs the risk of favouring, like modern science, a dissolution of the links that unite ethics and medicine, and so of depriving the latter of the humanist dimensions that underlie the responsibilities that fall to it. Faced with this possible pitfall, this contribution proposes to envisage as a figure of moral progress, consubstantial with the development of biomedical science, an ethical approach conceived as a means of social intervention which takes the first steps towards an ethics of responsibility integrating the bioethical perspective within a hermeneutic and deliberative approach. By the yardstick of a prudential approach, it would pay particular attention to the diverse sources of normativity in medical acts. It is suggested that this ethical approach is a source of progress insofar as it constitutes an indispensable attitude of watchfulness, which biomedical science can lean on as it advances, with a view to ensuring that the fundamental link uniting ethics and medicine is maintained.
Resumo:
This paper examines three specific issues raised by The Ethical Project. First, I discuss the varieties of altruism and spell out the differences between the definitions proposed by Kitcher and the ways altruism is usually conceived in biology, philosophy, psychology, and economics literature. Second, with the example of Kitcher's account, I take a critical look at evolutionary stories of the emergence of human ethical practices. Third, I point to the revolutionary implications of the Darwinian methodology when it is thoughtfully applied to ethics.
Resumo:
Business ethicists often assume that unethical behavior arises when individuals deviate from the norms and responsibilities that are institutionalized to frame economic activities. People's greed motivates them to violate the rules of the game. In Kohlberg's terms, it is assumed that such actors make decisions in a preconventional way and act opportunistically. In this article, we propose an alternative interpretation of deviant behavior, arguing that such behavior does not result from a lack of conventional moral guidance but rather from the fact that characteristics attributed to preconventional morality by Kohlberg - the purely incentive and punishment driven opportunistic morality - have become the conventionalized morality. The prevailing norms that economic actors have internalized as their yardstick are those of the preconventional Homo economicus. Not the deviation from, but the compliance with the rules of the game explains many forms of harmful and illegal decisions made in corporations.