Responsibility within life science research is a highly scrutinised field. Increasingly, scientists are presented with a range of duties and expectations regarding their conduct within the research setting. In many cases, these duties are presented deontologically, forgoing extensive discussion on how these are practically implemented into the minutiae of daily research practices. This de-contextualized duty has proven problematic when it comes to practical issues of compliance, however it is not often considered as a fundamental aspect of building ethics discourse. This paper examines this issue in detail, particularly focusing on how differences in the contrasts between the ideal and real physical research environments cause conceptual problems for scientists and retard ethical engagement. Such issues are particularly pertinent in low- and middle-income countries. This paper combines theoretical and empirical analyses using the concept of 'dual-use' as a focalizing topic.
Bezuidenhout, Louise; Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org; Source Info: Feb2015, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p51; Subject Term: DEONTOLOGICAL ethics; Subject Term: DISCOURSE; Subject Term: LIFE sciences; Subject Term: LOW-income countries; Subject Term: EXPECTATION (Psychology); Subject Term: PHYSICS laboratories; Author-Supplied Keyword: Africa; Author-Supplied Keyword: Bioethics; Author-Supplied Keyword: Empirical ethics; Author-Supplied Keyword: Ethics pedagogy; Author-Supplied Keyword: Life science ethics; Author-Supplied Keyword: Low- and middle-income countries; Author-Supplied Keyword: Research environments; NAICS/Industry Codes: 541712 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology); NAICS/Industry Codes: 541380 Testing Laboratories; Number of Pages: 23p; Document Type: Article