Scientific Social Responsibility: Lessons From the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement.
Scientific Social Responsibility: Lessons From the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement.
复制标题
科学的社会责任：企业社会责任运动的教训。
DOI：
10.1080/15265161.2015.1103812
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Cadigan,RJean
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Conley,JohnM;Lázaro-Muñoz,Gabriel;Prince,AnyaER;Davis,ArleneM;Cadigan,RJean
帕梅拉湖Sankar和Mildred K. Cho的文章《基因工程的工程价值：科学社会责任的拟议分析框架》（2015年）提出了“如何思考社会责任”的问题，并提出了一个分析框架。我们从我们研究企业社会责任（CSR）的平行问题的经验的角度来探讨同样的问题（Conley and威廉姆斯2005; Conley and威廉姆斯2011）。尽管存在明显的差异，但商业和科学领域的企业面临着类似的挑战，包括大型和不同组织的治理，文化和价值观的灌输和传播，自我利益和社会利益的协调，以及自我监管和外部监管之间的适当平衡。至少25年来，企业从业者和学者一直试图发展一个有意义的企业社会责任概念，并通过强有力的自我监管制度加以应用（Shamir 2004）。这些努力取得了一些实际的成果;然而，企业社会责任运动也被批评为一种自私的公共关系策略，其主要目的是利用容易操纵的自我监管来阻止强制性的政府监管（Conley and威廉姆斯2005; Shamir 2004）。生物技术公司和研究型大学也面临着类似的诱惑。桑卡尔和周认为，科学家必须“超越科学道德责任的概念，即仅限于'负责任的研究行为'（RCR）和满足道德要求”，必须定义和追求更广泛的科学社会责任（SSR）概念。他们分析SSR的框架考察了五个因素：科学家用来证明其活动合理性的基础或价值观;科学家识别和管理危害和利益的方法;解决社会责任问题的时机;社会责任讨论的参与者;以及讨论的透明度。在将这一框架应用于最近的两项调查后，他们得出了两个有趣的建议：首先，“生命科学研究人员对社会责任的定义可能会有很大的不同”，其次，“传统的，基于规则的社会责任方法可能不足以作为创造更强大的社会责任概念的基础，这是最近科学趋势的需求。
Pamela L. Sankar and Mildred K. Cho’s article,“Engineering Values Into Genetic Engineering: A Proposed Analytic Framework for Scientific Social Responsibility”(2015), raises the question of “how to think about social responsibility” and proposes an analytical framework. We explore the same question from the perspective of our experience studying the parallel issue of corporate social responsibility (CSR)(Conley and Williams 2005; Conley and Williams 2011). Despite the obvious differences, enterprises in business and science confront similar challenges, including the governance of large and disparate organizations, the inculcation and transmission of culture and values, the reconciliation of self-interest and societal interests, and the proper balance between self-regulation and external regulation. For at least 25 years, business practitioners and scholars have attempted to develop a meaningful concept of corporate social responsibility and apply it through robust self-regulatory regimes (Shamir 2004). These efforts have accomplished some tangible good; however, the corporate social responsibility movement has also been validly criticized as a self-serving public relations gambit whose main purpose is the use of easily manipulated self-regulation to head off coercive governmental regulation (Conley and Williams 2005; Shamir 2004). Biotechnology companies and research universities face similar temptations.Sankar and Cho argue, appropriately, that scientists must “expand beyond a concept of ethical responsibility in science that is limited to ‘responsible conduct of research’(RCR) and meeting ethical requirements,” and must define and pursue a broader concept of scientific social responsibility (SSR). Their framework for analyzing SSR examines five factors: the basis or values that scientists use to justify their activities; the approach that scientists take to identify and manage harms and benefits; the timing for addressing issues of social responsibility; the participants in the social responsibility discussion; and the transparency of that discussion. Having applied this framework to two recent investigations, they conclude with two intriguing suggestions: first,“that life science researchers might vary dramatically in their definition of social responsibility,” and second,“that traditional, rule-based approaches to social responsibility might be insufficient as a basis for creating the more robust concept of social responsibility that recent trends in science demand.”