Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Erschienen in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2018

13.09.2017 | Scientific Contribution

On (scientific) integrity: conceptual clarification

verfasst von: Maria do Céu Patrão Neves

Erschienen in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The notion of “integrity” is currently quite common and broadly recognized as complex, mostly due to its recurring and diverse application in various distinct domains such as the physical, psychic or moral, the personal or professional, that of the human being or of the totality of beings. Nevertheless, its adjectivation imprints a specific meaning, as happens in the case of “scientific integrity”. This concept has been defined mostly by via negativa, by pointing out what goes against integrity, that is, through the identification of its infringements, which has also not facilitated the elaboration of an overarching and consensual code of scientific integrity. In this context, it is deemed necessary to clarify the notion of “integrity”, first etymologically, recovering the original meaning of the term, and then in a specifically conceptual way, through the identification of the various meanings with which the term can be legitimately used, particularly in the domain of scientific research and innovation. These two steps are fundamental and indispensable for a forthcoming attempt at systematizing the requirements of “scientific integrity”.
Fußnoten
1
“6. The right of the research subject to safeguard his or her integrity must always be respected. Every precaution should be taken to respect the privacy of the subject and to minimize the impact of the study on the subject’s physical and mental integrity and on the personality of the subject.”, Helsinki Declaration (1975): I, 6. In the realm of bioethics, and specifically in clinical research ethics, “integrity” refers firstly to the physical and psychic human dimension as well as to the individual personality, expressing its inviolable wholeness.
 
2
“3. Integrity. The idea of integrity expresses the untouchable core, the basic condition of dignified life, both physical and mental, that must not be subject to external intervention. Therefore, respect for integrity is respect for privacy and in particular for the patient’s understanding of his or her own life and illness. Integrity refers to the coherence of life of beings with dignity that should not be touched and destroyed. In relation to human beings it is coherence of life which is remembered from experiences and therefore can be told in a narrative. It is the life story of a person, the narrative unity or history of human society and culture. Some would also include the natural grown coherence in the life of animals and plants and finally the created wholeness of the world which makes the conditions for all life.”, The Barcelona Declaration (1997): C. Articulations, 3. This declaration presents the most comprehensive bioethical definition of “integrity”, based in the different meanings the concept acquires derived from the different contexts it is applied to.
 
3
“Article 8—Respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity: In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account. Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.”, Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005): article 8. This Declaration does not specify the meaning of “integrity” but, by internationally establishing it as a principle, strengths the obligation to respect it.
 
4
“Article 1—Purpose and object: Parties to this Convention shall protect the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the application of biology and medicine.”, Convention of Human Rights and Biomedicine (1997): article 1. This convention already establishes “integrity” as a fundamental human right.
 
5
“D. Conditions for the exercise of scientific activity. Article 13: The responsibilities inherent in the activities of researchers, including meticulousness, caution, intellectual honesty and integrity in carrying out their research as well as in the presentation and utilization of their findings, should be the subject of particular attention in the framework of research on the human genome, because of its ethical and social implications. Public and private science policy-makers also have particular responsibilities in this respect.”, Declaration on Human Genome and Human Rights (1997): article 13. “Integrity” is one of the researchers’ obligations.
 
6
“Article 15—Accuracy, reliability, quality and security: The persons and entities responsible for the processing of human genetic data, human proteomic data and biological samples should take the necessary measures to ensure the accuracy, reliability, quality and security of these data and the processing of biological samples. They should exercise rigour, caution, honesty and integrity in the processing and interpretation of human genetic data, human proteomic data or biological samples, in view of their ethical, legal and social implications.”, Declaration on Human Genetic Data (2003): article 15. In what concerns genetic research, the virtue of “integrity” becomes an elementary as well as a fundamental professional duty.
 
7
“Article 18—Decision-making and addressing bioethical issues: 1. Professionalism, honesty, integrity and transparency in decision-making should be promoted, in particular declarations of all conflicts of interest and appropriate sharing of knowledge. Every endeavour should be made to use the best available scientific knowledge and methodology in addressing and periodically reviewing bioethical issues.”, Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005): article 18, 1. It is interesting to compare both uses of “integrity” in this declaration: referring to persons, as an ethical principle (article 8); and referring to behaviors, as a professional duty (article 18).
 
8
“Via negativa” is a philosophical methodology, well structured since medieval time (e.g. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) and still used today (namely in philosophical hermeneutics, e.g. Gadamer), characterized by describing a reality by negation, by stating what that reality is not as the easiest way of approach to what it is. Broadly speaking this methodology goes backs to Socrates’ dialogues where the philosopher starts by saying what a virtue is not when trying to define what it is.
 
9
“The value and benefits of research are vitally dependent on the integrity of research. While there can be and are national and disciplinary differences in the way research is organized and conducted, there are also principles and professional responsibilities that are fundamental to the integrity of research wherever it is undertaken.”, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, Preamble.
 
10
“Integrity” is also mentioned at the section on “Violations of Research Integrity” as principle to be considered in any investigation process “dealing with violations and allegations of misconduct”.
 
11
“1. Integrity. Collaborating partners should take collective responsibility for the trustworthiness of the overall collaborative research and individual responsibility for the trustworthiness of their own contributions.”, Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations.
 
12
“Within the framework of the Responsible Conduct of Research, the basic principles of Research Integrity—namely honesty, responsibility, fairness and accountability—are enshrined in foundational documents [For example: the Singapore Statement, the InterAcademy Council IAP Policy Report, and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] that also describe the responsibilities of researchers and the scientific community.”, Statement on Principles on Research Integrity.
 
Literatur
Dudzinski, Denise M. 2004. “Integrity: Principled coherence, virtue, or both?” Journal of Value Inquiry 38: 299–313.CrossRef
Hermeren, Göran. 2001. “Intégrité”. In Nouvelle encyclopédie de bioéthique: medicine, environnement, biotechnologie, eds. Gilbert Hottois, and Jean-Noël Missa, 542–544. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
Kemp, Peter. 1998. “L’Intégrité”. In Studies in ethics and law: From ethics to biolaw, vol. 7. Copenhagen: Rhodos.
Rendtorff, J.D., and P. Kemp. 2000. Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw, vol. I. Autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability, 393–399. Copenhagen: Centre for Ethics and Law.
Valpy, Francis Edward Jackson. 2005. Etymological dictionary of the Latin language. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation.
Van der Heyden, M.A.G., T. Van de Ven, and T. Opthof. 2009. Fraud and misconduct in science: The stem cell seduction. Netherland Heart Journal 17 (1): 25–29.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
On (scientific) integrity: conceptual clarification
verfasst von
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves
Publikationsdatum
13.09.2017
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9796-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Scientific Contribution

Danish sperm donors and the ethics of donation and selection

Scientific Contribution

Beyond integrating social sciences: Reflecting on the place of life sciences in empirical bioethics methodologies

Scientific Contribution

Against the integrative turn in bioethics: burdens of understanding

Scientific Contribution

Public trust and ‘ethics review’ as a commodity: the case of Genomics England Limited and the UK’s 100,000 genomes project

Scientific Contribution

Dementia, identity and the role of friends

Scientific Contribution

Genome editing and assisted reproduction: curing embryos, society or prospective parents?