Semistructured interviews (N = 61) with toxic exposure epidemiologists indicate that those in government settings (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], state health departments, and National Institutes of Health [NIH]) were more aware of and responsive to societal consequences of their publications than were those in universities. The NIH data were surprising, given NIH's ivory tower image, but in part appear to stem from a broad trend toward greater accountability in science. Other worksite influences included “institutional voice”: epidemiologists from NIH or CDC were aware of speaking in the “voice of the government.” There was also limited evidence suggesting the importance of the local unit environment: investigators in the same research unit often reported being influenced by the tone set by the unit chief and colleagues. This preliminary study suggests that work setting influences how epidemiologists define and execute their ethical responsibilities toward social consequences of their work, and it generates questions and five hypotheses for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angell, M., and J. P. Kassirer. 1994. Clinical research—What should the public believe? (Editorial). New England Journal of Medicine331:189-190.
2.
Bain, R. 1933. Scientist as citizen. Social Forces11:412-415.
3.
Barber, B. [1952] 1962. Science and the social order. Rev. ed. New York: Collier.
4.
Barnes, B. 1974. Scientific knowledge and sociological theory. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
5.
Barringer, F. 1989. Marriage study that caused furor is revised to omit impact of career. New York Times, 11 November, A10.
6.
Bennett, P. 1999. Understanding responses to risk: Some basic findings. In Risk communication and public health, edited by P. Bennett and K. Calman, 3-19. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Bennett, P., and K. Calman, eds. 1999. Risk communication and public health. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
Berman, Y. 1994. Grey documentation as a knowledge base in social work. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization15:307-320.
9.
Bernal, J. D. [1939] 1967. The social function of science. London: MIT Press.
10.
Boffey, P.M., J.E. Rodgers, and S. H. Schneider. 1999. Interpreting uncertainty: A panel discussion. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 81-91. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Brody, J. E. 1998. Personal health: A study guide to scientific studies. New York Times, 11 August, F7.
12.
Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (Sociological Review Monograph No. 32), edited by J. Law, 196-233. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
13.
Callon, M., and J. Law. 1982. On interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counterenrolment. Social Studies of Science12:615-625.
Chubin, D. E., and E. J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
16.
Chui, G., C. Petit, and M. Riordan. 2001. Cultivating the civic scientist: A panel discussion. Science Communication23:57-65.
17.
Clark, F., and D. L. Illman. 2001. Dimensions of civic science: Introductory essay. Science Communication23:5-27.
18.
Cohen, I. B. 1990. Puritanism and the rise of modern science: The Merton Thesis. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
19.
Cole, J. R. 1988. Dietary cholesterol and heart disease: The construction of a medical “fact.” In Surveying social life, edited by H.J. O'Gorman, 437-466. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
20.
Dan, B. B. 1987. One-minute medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association257:2798.
21.
Doll, R. 1987. Foreword. In Epidemiology in medicine, edited by S. L. Mayrent, xi-xii. Boston: Little, Brown.
22.
Dumanoski, D., W. H. Farland, and S. Krimsky. 1999. Science in the public arena: A panel discussion. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 167-175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Etzkowitz, H. 1989. Entrepreneurial science in the academy: A case of the transformation of norms. Social Problems36:14-29.
24.
Etzkowitz, H. 1992. Individual investigators and their research groups. Minerva30:28-50.
25.
Evan, W. M. 1962. Role strain and the norm of reciprocity in research organizations. American Journal of Sociology68:346-354.
26.
Fahnestock, J. 1986. Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication3:275-296.
27.
Fausto-Sterling, A., and E. Balaban. 1993. Genetics and male sexual orientation (Letter). Science261:1257.
28.
Fleck, L. [1935] 1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact, edited by T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton; translated by F. Bradley and T.J. Trenn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Friedman, S. M., S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers. 1986. Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York: Free Press.
30.
Fujimura, J. H. 1996. Crafting science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Gieryn, T. 1978. Problem retention and problem change in science. In Sociology of science, edited by J. Gaston, 96-115. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32.
Goode, E. 1999. Study on child sex abuse provokes a political furor. New York Times, 13 June, 1:33.
33.
Greenberg, M., and D. Wartenberg. 1990. How epidemiologists can improve television network news coverage of disease cluster reports. Epidemiology1:167-170.
34.
Greenwood, M. R. C., and D. G. Riordan. 2001. Civic scientist/civic duty. Science Communication23:28-40.
35.
Hagstrom, W. O. [1965] 1975. The scientific community. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
36.
Hardey, M. 1999. Doctor in the house: The Internet as a source of lay health knowledge and the challenge to expertise. Sociology of health and illness21:820-835.
37.
Healy, B. 1992. Is this your father's NIH? [and other Comments]. Science257:312-313, 414-415.
38.
Hermanowicz, J. C. 1998. The stars are not enough. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Hilgartner, S. 1990. The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science20:519-539.
40.
Jasanoff, S. S., 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science17:195-230.
41.
Knorr Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
Kornhauser, W. 1962. Scientists in industry: Conflict and accommodation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
43.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
Latour, B. 1988. The pasteurization of France. Translated by A. Sheridan and J. Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
Latour, B. 1991. The impact of science studies on political philosophy. Science, Technology, & Human Values16:3-19.
46.
Lock, S. P. 1986. A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI.
47.
Lundberg, G. A. 1929. The logic of sociology and social research. In Trends in American sociology, edited by G. A. Lundberg, R. Bain, and N. Anderson, 389-425. New York: Harper.
48.
Marcson, S. 1964. The management and mismanagement of industrial scientists. Trans-action1 (2): 25-27.
Merton, R. K. [1938] 1973. Science and the social order. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, edited by N. Storer, 254-266. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
Merton, R. K. [1942] 1973. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, edited by N. Storer, 267-278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
Merton, R. K. [1957] 1976. The ambivalence of physicians. In Sociological ambivalence, 65-72. New York: Free Press.
53.
Merton, R. K. [1963] 1976. The ambivalence of scientists. In Sociological ambivalence, 32-55. New York: Free Press.
54.
Mills, J. L. 1987. Reporting provocative results: Can we publish “hot” articles without getting burned? Journal of the American Medical Association258:3428-3429.
Nelkin, D. 1985. Managing biomedical news. Social Research52:625-646.
57.
Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
58.
Osburn, C. B. 1984. The place of the journal in the scholarly communications system. Library Resources and Technical Services28:315-324.
59.
Pelz, D. C., and F. M. Andrews. 1966. Industrial scientists in organizations. New York: John Wiley.
60.
Phillips, D.P., E.J. Kanter, B. Bednarczyk, and P.L. Tastad. 1991. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine325:1180-1183.
61.
Rabino, I. 1994. How European and U.S. genetic scientists view the impact of public attention on their field: A comparison. Science, Technology, & Human Values19:23-46.
62.
Rabinow, P. 1997. Making PCR: A story of biotechnology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63.
Rabinow, P. 1999. French DNA: Trouble in purgatory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
64.
Reinharz, S. 1997. Enough already! The pervasiveness of warnings in everyday life. Qualitative Sociology20:477-485.
65.
Rier, D. A. 1999. The versatile “caveat” section of an epidemiology paper: Managing public and private risk. Science Communication21 (1): 3-37.
66.
Rier, D. A. 2000. Hidden activism, passive activism? The case of toxic exposure epidemiology. Presented at the British Sociological Association Medical Sociology Group/European Society for Health and Medical Sociology 2nd Joint Conference. University of York, England. 14-17 September.
67.
Rier. D. A. Forthcoming. Gender, lifecourse, and publication decisions in toxic-exposure epidemiology: “Now!” vs. “Wait a Minute!” Social Studies of Science.
68.
Robbins, D., and R. Johnston. 1976. The role of cognitive and occupational differentiation in scientific controversies. Social Studies of Science6:349-368.
69.
Roberts, S. 1991. NIH's intramural research program: The once and future king? Journal of NIH Research3 (August): 20-28.
70.
Rogers, C. L. 1999. The importance of understanding audiences. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 179-200. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
71.
Shapin, S. 1988. Understanding the Merton Thesis. Isis79 (299): 594-605.
72.
Shapin, S. 1992. Discipline and bounding: The history and sociology of science as seen through the externalism-internalism debate. History of Science30:333-369.
73.
Shell, E.R. 1998. The Hippocratic wars. New York Times Magazine, 28 June, 34-38.
74.
Singer, E., and P. M. Endreny. 1993. Reporting on risk. New York: Russell Sage.
75.
Skolbekken, J.-A. 1995. The risk epidemic in medical journals. Social Science & Medicine40:291-305.
76.
Smith, B. L. R. 1996. The accountability of science. Minerva34:45-56.
77.
Stocking, S. H. 1999. How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 23-41. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78.
Susser, M. 1989. Epidemiology today: “A thought-tormented world.” International Journal of Epidemiology18:481-488.
79.
Traweek, S. 1988. Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high-energy physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80.
Vaughan, D. 1996. The Challenger launch decision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
81.
Verhoog, H. 1981. The responsibilities of scientists. Minerva19:582-604.
82.
Victor, B., and J. B. Cullen. 1988. The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly33:101-125.
83.
Weigold, M. F. 2001. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication23: 164-193.
84.
Winkler, J. D., D. E. Kanouse, L. Brodsley, and R. H. Brook. 1986. Popular press coverage of eight National Institutes of Health consensus development topics. Journal of the American Medical Association255:1323-1327.
85.
Ziman, J. 1968. Public knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
86.
Ziman, J. 1998. Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science282 (5395): 1813-1814.
87.
Ziman, J. 2000. Real science: What it is, and what it means. New York: Cambridge University Press.
88.
Zuckerman, H. 1977. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
89.
Zuckerman, H. 1978. Theory choice and problem choice in science. In Sociology of science, edited by J. Gaston, 65-95. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
90.
Zuckerman, H. 1988. The sociology of science. In Handbook of sociology, edited by N. Smelser, 511-574. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
