Difference between revisions of "Resource:19344715-932f-4599-b6db-cef280258d52"
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=The Ethics of Pharmaceutical Research Funding: A Social Organization Approach | |Title=The Ethics of Pharmaceutical Research Funding: A Social Organization Approach | ||
| − | |Is About=This is a fictional case | + | |Is About=This is a fictional case about a researcher that works for a pharmaceutical company. Instead of looking from the viewpoint of the individual, the case adopts a ‘social organization approach’: it analyses how the interactions with the company personnel may subtly lead to unethical behaviour. |
<references responsive="0" /> | <references responsive="0" /> | ||
| − | |Important Because= | + | |Important Because=Studies that are financed by the pharmaceutical industry may be subject to a conflict of interest of the company. Routine contacts of the pharmaceutical company and the scientists may cause the scientist to perceive the unethical behaviour as normal. Adopting this new ‘social organization approach’, rather than analysing the individual characters, may give insight into how these company-scientist interactions can lead to unethical behaviour. Therefore, this case may potentially help us to prevent future unethical behaviour in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies.<br /> |
<references /> | <references /> | ||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
Latest revision as of 14:56, 5 August 2021
ResourcesThe Ethics of Pharmaceutical Research Funding: A Social Organization Approach
What is this about?
This is a fictional case about a researcher that works for a pharmaceutical company. Instead of looking from the viewpoint of the individual, the case adopts a ‘social organization approach’: it analyses how the interactions with the company personnel may subtly lead to unethical behaviour.
Why is this important?
Studies that are financed by the pharmaceutical industry may be subject to a conflict of interest of the company. Routine contacts of the pharmaceutical company and the scientists may cause the scientist to perceive the unethical behaviour as normal. Adopting this new ‘social organization approach’, rather than analysing the individual characters, may give insight into how these company-scientist interactions can lead to unethical behaviour. Therefore, this case may potentially help us to prevent future unethical behaviour in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies.
