IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-02920-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do cancer research scientists deal with machines and consumables? Exploring research ethics from an inductive ethnographic perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Salaheddine Mnasri

    (The American University of the Middle East)

  • Fadi Jaber

    (The American University of the Middle East)

Abstract

This paper started from an inductive ethnography conducted within a cancer research lab in Belgium. The primary objective was to explore how researchers make decisions and rationalize their scientific practices. Through data collected from participant observation, interviews, and analysis of research protocols, the study exposes serious knowledge gaps that compromise research ethics. Specifically, the findings reveal the scientists’ need for more understanding of the validity of their lab machines and the readymade consumables procured from external providers. Moreover, without questioning this dependency, our participants (scientists) rely heavily on machines and consumables for almost all their research protocols. The findings suggest that cancer researchers place unjustifiable trust in the lab’s machines and the external providers’ reliability; this compromises the following three fundamental ethical principles: research integrity, responsible conduct, and the responsibility of using resources and technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Salaheddine Mnasri & Fadi Jaber, 2024. "How do cancer research scientists deal with machines and consumables? Exploring research ethics from an inductive ethnographic perspective," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-7, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-02920-x
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-02920-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-02920-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-02920-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salaheddine Mnasri & Marina Jovic, 2023. "On the need to explicitize the unstated argument in cancer research: an ethnography on scientific argumentation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Niels Mejlgaard & Lex M. Bouter & George Gaskell & Panagiotis Kavouras & Nick Allum & Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen & Costas A. Charitidis & Nik Claesen & Kris Dierickx & Anna Domaradzka & Andrea Reyes Elizo, 2020. "Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk," Nature, Nature, vol. 586(7829), pages 358-360, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rosie Hastings & Krishma Labib & Iris Lechner & Lex Bouter & Guy Widdershoven & Natalie Evans, 2023. "Guidance on research integrity provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies: A scoping review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 318-335.
    2. Labib, Krishma & Evans, Natalie & Scepanovic, Rea & Kavouras, Panagiotis & Elizondo, Andrea Reyez & Kaltenbrunner, Wolfgang & Buljan, Ivan & Ravn, Tine & Widdershoven, Guy & Bouter, Lex, 2021. "Education and training policies for research integrity: Insights from a focus group study," OSF Preprints p38nw, Center for Open Science.
    3. Gowri Gopalakrishna & Gerben ter Riet & Gerko Vink & Ineke Stoop & Jelte M Wicherts & Lex M Bouter, 2022. "Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-02920-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.