@article {4254561, title = {Health, food, and science: an ethical assessment of research agendas}, journal = {Logique \& Analyse}, volume = {228}, year = {2014}, pages = {701-726}, abstract = {

We offer several new arguments for the view that existing research agendas in the health sciences and the agricultural sciences are morally deficient. More specifically, the following kinds of distortion of the agenda are discussed: in the health sciences, the health problems of the poor are more or less neglected, as well as non-medicinal solutions to health problems, and in the agricultural sciences, insufficient attention is paid to agroecology. We justify the claim that these three kinds of distortion are problematic on ethical grounds, showing that they are moral failures. Instead of starting from one ethical theory to show this, we present different ethical justifications, based on different ethical theories (Bentham’s utilitarianism, Rawls’s theory of justice, Pogge’s rights-based account of minimal justice, Kitcher’s ethical theory, and classical liberalism). This should make our conclusion (i.e. that the distorted research agendas in the health sciences and the agricultural sciences pose a moral problem) at least initially convincing to adherents of different ethical theories.

}, author = {De Winter, Jan and Kosolosky, Laszlo} } @incollection {de_winter_how_2014, title = {How (Not) to Reform Biomedical Research: A Review of Some Policy Proposals}, booktitle = {Responsible Innovation 1}, volume = {1}, year = {2014}, pages = {97{\textendash}110}, publisher = {Springer}, abstract = {

Abstract In a recent article, Julian Reiss has identified some very important epistemic, moral and socio-economic failures in current biomedical research, and he argues that philosophers of science should reflect on how to (re)organize biomedical research in order to remedy these failures. In this chapter, several possible reforms of biomedical research are evaluated. I will reflect on how to tackle the epistemic failures by comparing the solution suggested by Julian Reiss to an alternative policy option. Most attention will, however, be paid to one of the moral failures: the fact that a disproportionately small part of the money devoted to health research goes to research into diseases that mainly affect third-world countries (the problem of neglected diseases). The most important advantages and disadvantages of some prominent proposals for a solution are disclosed – I will consider the proposals of Thomas Pogge, Joseph Stiglitz, Julian Reiss, and James Robert Brown – and I will also draw attention to an alternative policy proposal.

}, doi = {http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1_7}, author = {De Winter, Jan} } @article {4254489, title = {The epistemic integrity of NASA practices in the space shuttle program}, journal = {ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH - POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE}, volume = {20}, number = {2}, year = {2013}, pages = {72{\textendash}92}, abstract = {

This article presents an account of epistemic integrity and uses it to demonstrate that the epistemic integrity of different kinds of practices in NASA{\textquoteright}s Space Shuttle Program was limited. We focus on the following kinds of practices: (1) research by working engineers, (2) review by middle-level managers, and (3) communication with the public. We argue that the epistemic integrity of these practices was undermined by production pressure at NASA, i.e., the pressure to launch an unreasonable amount of flights per year. Finally, our findings are used to develop some potential strategies to protect epistemic integrity in aerospace science.

}, issn = {0898-9621}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.767122}, author = {De Winter, Jan and Kosolosky, Laszlo} } @article {2999532, title = {The epistemic integrity of scientific research}, journal = {SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS}, volume = {19}, year = {2013}, pages = {757{\textendash}774}, abstract = {

We live in a world in which scientific expertise and its epistemic authority become more important. On the other hand, the financial interests in research, which could potentially corrupt science, are increasing. Due to these two tendencies, a concern for the integrity of scientific research becomes increasingly vital. This concern is, however, hollow if we do not have a clear account of research integrity. Therefore, it is important that we explicate this concept. Following Rudolf Carnap’s characterization of the task of explication, this means that we should develop a concept that is (1) similar to our common sense notion of research integrity, (2) exact, (3) fruitful, and (4) as simple as possible. Since existing concepts do not meet these four requirements, we develop a new concept in this article. We describe a concept of epistemic integrity that is based on the property of deceptiveness, and argue that this concept does meet Carnap’s four requirements of explication. To illustrate and support our claims we use several examples from scientific practice, mainly from biomedical research.

}, issn = {1353-3452}, author = {De Winter, Jan and Kosolosky, Laszlo} } @article {4254569, title = {Fraud in academic medical research: lessons from Flanders, Belgium}, journal = {The reasoner}, volume = {7}, number = {7}, year = {2013}, pages = {2}, abstract = {

A scientific survey on fraud in academic medical research in Flanders , of which the results were recently published in popular science magazine Eos, has caused tumult in the Flemish academic community. The reason is that these results suggest that scientific fraud (which could indirectly cause ill health and death among patients) is not as rare as earlier estimates indicate . Malpractices are primarily attributed to the pressure to publish. In this piece , we elaborate on the content of the study and pave the way for reform.

}, issn = {1757-0522}, url = {http://thereasoner.org/}, author = {De Winter, Jan and Kosolosky, Laszlo} } @article {2119436, title = {How to make the research agenda in the health sciences less distorted}, journal = {THEORIA - REVISTA DE TEORIA HISTORIA Y FUNDAMENTOS DE LA CIENCIA}, volume = {27}, number = {1}, year = {2012}, pages = {75{\textendash}93}, abstract = {

A well-known problem in the health sciences is the distorted research agenda: the agenda features too little research that is tailored to the health problems of the poor, and it features too little research that supports the development of other solutions to health problems than medicines (e.g., change of lifestyle). This article analyzes these two sub-problems in more detail, and assesses several strategies to deal with them, resulting in some specific recommendations that indicate what governments should do to make the research agenda in the health sciences less distorted.

}, issn = {0495-4548}, author = {De Winter, Jan} } @conference {de_winter_distorted_2010, title = {The Distorted Research Agenda in the Health Sciences and James Robert Brown’s Policy Proposal.}, booktitle = {Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium II}, year = {2010}, publisher = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e}}, organization = {Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgi{\"e}}, url = {http://logica.ugent.be/centrum/preprints/De_Winter_(2012)_-_Brown.pdf}, author = {De Winter, Jan}, editor = {Van Kerkhove, Bart and Libert, Thierry and Vanpaemel, Geert and Marage, Pierre} } @article {924776, title = {Explanations in software engineering: the pragmatic point of view}, journal = {Minds and Machines}, volume = {20}, number = {2}, year = {2010}, pages = {277{\textendash}289}, abstract = {

This article reveals that explanatory practice in software engineering is in accordance with pragmatic explanatory pluralism, which states that explanations should at least partially be evaluated by their practical use. More specifically, I offer a defense of the idea that several explanation-types are legitimate in software engineering, and that the appropriateness of an explanation-type depends on (a) the engineer{\textquoteright}s interests, and (b) the format of the explanation-seeking question he asks, with this format depending on his interests. This idea is defended by considering examples that are representative for explanatory practice in software engineering. Different kinds of technological explanation are spelled out, and the dependence of their appropriateness on interests and question-formats is extensively illustrated.

}, issn = {0924-6495}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11023-010-9190-2}, author = {De Winter, Jan}, editor = {Moor, James H} } @article {de_winter_pragmatic_2010, title = {A Pragmatic Account of Functions}, journal = {Ghent University, Ghent}, year = {2010}, abstract = {

In this article, a pluralism of function concepts is defended on the basis of pragmatic considerations. It is shown that we use functional statements for a variety of explanatory purposes, and that each explanatory purpose asks for a specific notion of function. More specifically, I argue that the meaning of the statement “the function of x is to ” depends on the explanation-seeking question that this statement is supposed to answer, and that we cannot construct one ultimate notion of function that is appropriate in every explanatory context. Several explanation-seeking questions are explicated, as well as the function concepts that can be used to answer them, resulting in a pragmatic framework for function concepts. This framework is applied to both the technical and the biological domain.

}, url = {http://logica.ugent.be/centrum/preprints/De_Winter_-_Functional_Explanation__DRAFT_24_.pdf}, author = {De Winter, Jan} } @article {677635, title = {De ontologische focus van sociaal-wetenschappelijke verklaringen.}, journal = {Ethiek \& Maatschappij}, volume = {12}, number = {3}, year = {2009}, pages = {3{\textendash}22}, abstract = {

The author presents a survey of different opinions about the ontological focus of social scientific explanations. The opinions discussed are: methodological collectivism, methodological individualism, methodological structurism, methodological physicalism, the sociobiological point of view, and explanatory pluralism. These approaches all provide an answer to the question ‘On which ontological level(s) should social scientific explanations concentrate?’ Because all other forms of explanatory pluralism, as well as the non-pluralistic answers to this question, have certain problems, the author introduces a new form of explanatory pluralism that avoids these problems: context-related explanatory pluralism. Context-related explanatory pluralism makes a critical attitude (in the philosophy of science) compatible with a fluently developing and progressing science. This means that it is not only the most plausible guideline regarding the ontological focus of social scientific explanations, but also allows us to solve the conflict between Steve Fuller and Thomas Kuhn.

}, author = {De Winter, Jan} }