首页> 外文期刊>Perspectives in Biology and Medicine >WHO SHOULD BE DRIVING US SCIENCE POLICY?
【24h】

WHO SHOULD BE DRIVING US SCIENCE POLICY?

机译:谁应该推动美国科学政策?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Transparency was not always a desired aspect of medicine or STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) research. In the late 1940s, the Nuremberg Code heralded a new era of informed patient consent, research subject protection, and the view that the public had a stake in emerging technology and should have some knowledge and input into the directions of scientific research. This understanding intensified in the United States with the very public discussions leading to the promulgation of the NIH Guidelines for Recombinant DNA Research in the 1970s. The way in which oversight of recombinant DNA research was handled is still the exception rather than the rule. Starting in the 1990s, various terror incidents led to the enactment of statutes and issuance of regulations that undermined the ability of scientists and research institutions to self-regulate and in some cases to disseminate information freely. This essay explores how the scientific community got to this status quo, and how it could regain some measure of control despite competing needs for transparency and security, so that research critical to biosecurity is supported rather than impeded.
机译:透明度并不总是医学或茎(科学,技术,工程和数学)研究的理想方面。在20世纪40年代末,纽伦堡守则预示着知情患者同意,研究主题保护的新时代,以及公众在新兴技术方面有股份,应该有一些知识和投入科学研究的指示。这种理解在美国加强了20世纪70年代在20世纪70年代在20世纪70年代重组DNA研究颁布的NIH指南的讨论。处理重组DNA研究的监督的方式仍然是例外而不是规则。从20世纪90年代开始,各种恐怖事件导致法规颁布和发布破坏科学家和研究机构对自我规范的能力的条例,并且在某些情况下自由传播信息。本文探讨了科学界如何得到这种现状,尽管竞争需求对透明度和安全性的需求,但它如何重新获得一些控制措施,从而支持对生物安全的关键问题而不是阻碍。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号