연구윤리가 실천윤리의 한 독립적 분야로서 성장하기 위해선 연구윤리 정책 및 규정의 바탕에 놓여있는 윤리원칙들에 대한 철학적 분석과 다양한 철학적 관점들의 시도를 축적할 필요가 있다. 이러한 노력의 일환으로서 이 논문은 생명의료윤리 분야에서 뷰참과 칠드레스가 주창한 ‘원칙주의’가 연구윤리 일반에 대한 철학적 접근방식으로서도 적합한지를 검토해보려는 시도이다. 그들이 제안한 4원칙(자율성존중, 악행금지, 선행, 정의)은 본시 생명의학의 실천과 연구를 겨냥한 것으로 의료인이나 연구자의 환자나 피실험자에 대한 타율적 의무에 초점을 둔 까닭에, 기업과 정부를 비롯한 연구 의뢰인과 사회 및 일반대중에 대한 연구자의 자율적 의무를 설명하는 데에는 다소 한계가 있다. 따라서 나는 과학연구 일반을 대한 보편적 윤리원칙으로서 ‘객관성’과 ‘공공선’의 원칙을 제안하며, 몇몇 대표적 연구윤리 문제들을 통해 이 원칙들이 연구자들에게 요구하는 바가 무엇인지에 대해 대략적으로 설명하고자 시도한다. 많은 문제제기를 받아왔으며 그것들 중 몇몇은 실제로 난감한 문제들이지만, 연구윤리에 대한 철학적 접근방식으로서 원칙주의는 예컨대 결의론이나 덕윤리에 비해 ‘상대적으로’ 우월한 접근방식임을 간략하게 보여주고자 한다.

In order for Research Ethics to grow into an independent field, there is needed an accumulation of philosophical analyses of the underlying ethical principles of research ethics policies and regulations, and the various practical application of philosophical perspectives on ethical issues. As part of this effort, I examine the possibility of applying, to research ethics in general, the so called “principlism”, which Beauchamp and Childress have proposed as a philosophical approach to biomedical ethics. The four principles, namely respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice suggested by them for biomedical practices and researches, put stress on the heteronomous obligations of physicians and researchers to their patients and human subjects. For this reason, these principles seem inadequate in explaining researchers' autonomous obligations to clients such as companies and governments as well as to society and the public. Therefore, I suggest principles of “objectivity” and “common good” as universal ethical principles for general scientific research as an effort to give an outline of what these principles demand researchers to do with reference to a few typical problems in research ethics. I also argue that although many criticisms have been made and indeed some of them are quite serious, principlism as a philosophical approach to research ethics is relatively superior to other approaches, such as casuistry and moral ethics.

In order for Research Ethics to grow into an independent field, there is needed an accumulation of philosophical analyses of the underlying ethical principles of research ethics policies and regulations, and the various practical application of philosophical perspectives on ethical issues. As part of this effort, I examine the possibility of applying, to research ethics in general, the so called “principlism”, which Beauchamp and Childress have proposed as a philosophical approach to biomedical ethics. The four principles, namely respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice suggested by them for biomedical practices and researches, put stress on the heteronomous obligations of physicians and researchers to their patients and human subjects. For this reason, these principles seem inadequate in explaining researchers' autonomous obligations to clients such as companies and governments as well as to society and the public. Therefore, I suggest principles of “objectivity” and “common good” as universal ethical principles for general scientific research as an effort to give an outline of what these principles demand researchers to do with reference to a few typical problems in research ethics. I also argue that although many criticisms have been made and indeed some of them are quite serious, principlism as a philosophical approach to research ethics is relatively superior to other approaches, such as casuistry and moral ethics.

, , , , , ,

Research Ethics, Principlism, Common Good, Objectivity, Beauchamp, Utilitarianism, Casuistry