Abstract
Striving to be a better person, who lives more ethically today than you did yesterday, is the first and most essential step for writing better scientific papers. If you give only superficial thought and lip-service to the ethics of scientific research – i.e. if you simply think “yeah, yeah, yeah, I already know all this ethics stuff; let’s move along to the ‘real’ science” – then you will not know the right way to conduct and report medical research. And if you do not know the right way to conduct and report medical research, you will do it in ways that are wrong. Conducting and reporting research involves making dozens, or even hundreds, of little choices per day – most of them without much conscious realization that another little choice is actually being made. Even if one does stop to notice them, most of these choices seem to be only technical choices about methods or grammar or whatever else, but they are not only that. Viewed in another light, they are also moral choices about what to do and say, or not do and say, why, and how. If you do not recognize this deeper moral dimension of scientific research, or if you fail to respond to it appropriately, then you risk making choices that will seem appropriate for reaching your practical goals, but which may often run counter to the greater purposes of scientific medical research. When you spend time reading the ethical guidelines and earnestly reflecting on how they apply to your research, the quality of your research and reporting will improve. You will find yourself making subtle but important changes in your work. And you will find yourself prepared to make better decisions going forward.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
The PLoS Medicine Editors. Getting Closer to a Fully Correctable and Connected Research Literature. PLoS Med. 2013; 10: e1001408.
Fanelli D. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS One. 2009; 4: e5738.
Sigma Xi. Honor in Science. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: Sigma Xi; 2000.
Van Der Weyden MB. Managing allegations of scientific misconduct and fraud: lessons from the “Hall affair”. MJA. 2004; 180: 149-151.
Gillman MA. Checking for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and text recycling. Lancet. 2011; 377: 1403.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hanna, M. (2019). The Ethical Foundations of Medical Scientific Writing. In: How to Write Better Medical Papers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02954-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02955-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)