It’s time to return to the bioethics of research (and the system supporting it)
Ritorno alla bioetica della ricerca (e del sistema che la supporta)
The article by Lombardi and the comments by Timio and Floccari underlined the ethical biases of the peer review
process and, more generally, of the so-called “industry of scientific evidence”.
We further analyze the problematic nature of the peer review mechanisms, both on the Editor’s and the Reviewer’s
side, with the Declarations of Conflict of Interest and Financial Support being the most qualifying proposals
for a change.
The diffusion of the “open science” helps to improve the sharing of Author’s data with the scientific community.
However, the active role of institutions, like FDA and EFSA, in the deep analysis of the results of major articles
dealing with drugs and nutrients is highly welcome.
The world of scientific publishing is growing fastly, driven more by the law of economic profits than by the interest
of science and patients’ care. The average quality of the papers is then decreasing, but this is merely functional
to inflate researchers’ I.F. and curriculum.
In front of such a critical situation, a couple of bioethical values must be recalled: the first is the responsibility, transparency
and honesty of the researcher, which are the result of a process of continuous education and adherence
to the principles of the Federazione Italiana delle Società Medico-Scientifiche. A structural reform of the Academic
system is also the “conditio sine qua non”; new, ethically based figures of researchers may arise in the next future.
The second value is the control of quality and ethics of research, with special focus on the role of the Ethical Committee
in filtering methodologically inadequate or financially non transparent study proposals
G Tec Nefrol Dial 2015; 27(4): 261 - 263
Article Type: SPECIAL FOCUS REVIEW
Article Subject: SCIENZA DELLA DIVULGAZIONE
Alberto Edefonti, Giada Albertario, Carlo Agostoni