Code of ethics in research
Of ethics and professional association of clinical research professionals (“acrp”) is a nonprofit, tax-exempt association of clinical research professionals. Acrp’s vision is that clinical research is performed ethically, responsibly, and professionally everywhere in the world. The academy of clinical research professionals (the “academy”) is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization that advances and promotes the professional interests of clinical research professionals and provides certification for such professionals. This code of ethics and professional conduct (the “code”) serves as a code of professional conduct for acrp members and academy certificants, or any clinical research professional holding a ccra, ccrc and/or cpi certification from the academy. Acrp members and academy certificants are expected to adhere to this code in all professional activities and relationships with each other, organizations with which they work, research participants and society in general. The core values of integrity, courage, excellence, dedication and collaboration are manifest in the acrp code is a summary of what acrp and the academy define as essential ethical behavior for clinical research professionals. Compliance with the code is a requirement for initial and continued acrp membership and/or certification through the academy. Acrp members and academy certificants affirm their endorsement of the code and acknowledge their commitment to uphold its principles by joining and subsequently renewing their membership in acrp and/or by applying for and maintaining certification from the academy. Violations of the code may result in sanctions imposed under the discipline and complaints policy adopted by acrp and the academy (the “policy”). This policy was adopted to provide “due process” to acrp members and academy certificants and to protect the integrity and ensure the efficacy of the code is intended to be used by acrp members and academy certificants in conjunction with applicable national and international frameworks that govern the practice of clinical research, such as professional license requirements, ethical principles, guidelines, and laws and regulations applicable to clinical research, including but not limited to the declaration of helsinki, belmont report, ich gcp, us codes of federal regulations, who “ethical standards and procedures for research with human beings”, and uk research governance framework. The term “clinical research professional” as used herein encompasses many job titles, disciplines and duties within the profession of clinical research. For the purpose of this code, the term shall include anyone involved in the design, conduct, reporting, review and oversight of clinical research, and who is an acrp member or academy al research professionals who are members of acrp and/or academy certificants (referred to herein as “members” and “certificants”) shall abide by and conform to the following ethical standards:Beneficence and s and certificants shall respect and safeguard the welfare and rights of all individuals with whom they interact professionally, including but not limited to research participants. When designing, reviewing or conducting research, members and certificants shall ensure that potential risks to research participants prior to and throughout the research are minimized, and that those risks are outweighed by the anticipated benefits to the subjects and the importance of the knowledge to be gained. To test hypotheses which have not yet been adequately tested through current or previous reported research results, so as to avoid unnecessary risks to participants of redundant research and to maximize often scarce research and conduct research studies with scientific clinical research is conducted in accordance with currently accepted ethical guidelines and use coercion or undue influence when recruiting research participants, and seek autonomous informed and appropriately documented consent from participants prior to the instigation of any research procedure. Never coerce, or attempt to coerce or induce individuals such as staff members, vendors, contractors, investigators, or regulators to act in an unethical manner in any using substances such as alcohol or drugs while performing professional duties that may impair professional judgment or m only those duties for which one is appropriately qualified and trained to an individual is a member of a professional organization with its own licensing requirements and/or code of ethical or professional conduct, operate within the scope of practice outlined within those professional guidelines, codes or license. When performing responsibilities, ensure to operate within the scope of practice outlined within those professional guidelines or any acts that appear to be unethical or illegal to appropriate organizational, institutional or legal authorities, so long as supported by reasonable s and certificants shall educate themselves, and where applicable, their students and their colleagues, about responsible research practices. Members and certificants shall report research findings accurately and shall not misrepresent, fabricate or falsify results. Members and certificants shall make all research data available to authorized persons for verification in accordance with established standards of the clinical research profession. Within their scope of authority, members and certificants shall ensure the dissemination of scientifically sound information from clinical trials and other investigations, and shall not withhold information relevant to full evaluation of the safety, efficacy or utility of clinical interventions, agents or devices under investigation for the benefit of medicine, patients, science and society regardless of the research cts of is recognized that real, potential and apparent conflicts of interest naturally occur from time to time. Conflicts of interest arise when personal, professional, business, political and/or financial influences have the potential to significantly impair professional judgment and consequent acts of research misconduct.
Characteristics of ethics in research
If participation in any research-related activity that poses a potential conflict of interest situation is unavoidable, members and certificants must ensure that steps are taken to appropriately manage any such conflicts so as to safeguard quality and credibility of their professional judgment from inappropriate influence, and research participants’ rights and safety are fully protected. Members and certificants must maintain the privacy and confidentiality of research participants and of any confidential information received in connection with the members and certificants’ research to the extent required by local law(s) and/or signed contractual agreements. Clinical research professionals have access to confidential information, whether it is intellectual property of a company or personal health information of research participants, and have the responsibility to maintain this confidentiality. Steps taken to uphold this ethical principle include but are not limited to:Store written and electronic records in secure locations with access provided only to authorized t and transmit only the minimum essential information required to accomplish the task at standards of confidentiality to retrospective, current and prospective data collection and protected personal that all aspects of the privacy of research participants and their families is respected prior to, during, and following, any clinical research to society and compliance with the the very nature of their work, members and certificants are engaged in professional endeavors that enhance knowledge, skill, judgment and intellectual development that strives to contribute to improving the human condition. As such, clinical research professionals have a duty to society as a whole, and must be conscious of their place in society and the clinical research arena. Members and certificants shall not advocate, sanction, participate in, or condone any act that is prohibited by this code, unless failure to do so would be seriously detrimental to the rights and well-being of to professional discipline and beneficiaries of s and certificants shall be personally committed, and encourage others, to engage in safe, sound research practices consistent with the relevant ethical and scientific standards and the requirements of their professional discipline. Members and certificants have a duty to assist colleagues entering the profession by sharing knowledge and understanding of the ethics, responsibilities and needed competencies of their chosen area of research and practice. Where members or certificants seek to acquire or maintain a medical or other professional license, additional laws and ethical standards of conduct that are not pertinent to clinical research may apply. Members and certificants shall, in addition to adhering to this code of ethics and professional conduct, abide by their respective discipline’s laws and ethical standards of conduct. Additionally, members and certificants who are also involved in the clinical care of patients shall take steps to avoid contributing to therapeutic misconception of research participants, and to ensure that the roles and responsibilities of physicians and other health care professionals acting as investigators and care providers remain clear. Members and certificants shall also ensure that all contributory information provided to research participants, their legal representatives and other health care providers not involved with the research is fair, balanced, accurate, understandable and sufficiently comprehensive to enable well-informed decisions about the use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices or other clinical services or s for disciplinary action. Member or certificant shall be subject to disciplinary action if the actions of such member or certificant are determined, in accordance with the discipline and complaints policy, to constitute one or more of the following:Gross negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of services, or other unethical or unprofessional conduct based upon demonstrable or serious violations of this code of ethics and professional tion of a member or certificant of a felony or other crime of moral turpitude under federal or state law in a matter related to the conduct of the profession in the or misrepresentation in the application or maintenance of acrp membership, academy certification, or other professional recognition or the browser controls to adjust the font size, or print this is ethics in research & why is it important? Ideas and opinions expressed in this essay are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of the nih, niehs, or us most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong, such as the golden rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of professional conduct like the hippocratic oath ("first of all, do no harm"), a religious creed like the ten commandments ("thou shalt not kill... This is the most common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. Although most societies use laws to enforce widely accepted moral standards and ethical and legal rules use similar concepts, ethics and law are not the same. Peaceful civil disobedience is an ethical way of protesting laws or expressing political r way of defining 'ethics' focuses on the disciplines that study standards of conduct, such as philosophy, theology, law, psychology, or sociology. One may also define ethics as a method, procedure, or perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative activities. See glossary of commonly used terms in research are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. First, norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error.
Significance of ethics in research
For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimize , since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote the values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in research, such as guidelines for authorship, copyright and patenting policies, data sharing policies, and confidentiality rules in peer review, are designed to protect intellectual property interests while encouraging collaboration. Most researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed , many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public. For instance, federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, the human subjects protections, and animal care and use are necessary in order to make sure that researchers who are funded by public money can be held accountable to the , ethical norms in research also help to build public support for research. People are more likely to fund a research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of y, many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public health and safety. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm human and animal subjects, students, and the public. For example, a researcher who fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a researcher who fails to abide by regulations and guidelines relating to radiation or biological safety may jeopardize his health and safety or the health and safety of staff and and policies for research the importance of ethics for the conduct of research, it should come as no surprise that many different professional associations, government agencies, and universities have adopted specific codes, rules, and policies relating to research ethics. Many government agencies, such as the national institutes of health (nih), the national science foundation (nsf), the food and drug administration (fda), the environmental protection agency (epa), and the us department of agriculture (usda) have ethics rules for funded researchers. Other influential research ethics policies include singapore statement on research integrity, the american chemical society, the chemist professional’s code of conduct, code of ethics (american society for clinical laboratory science) american psychological association, ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, statements on ethics and professional responsibility (american anthropological association), statement on professional ethics (american association of university professors), the nuremberg code and the world medical association's declaration of following is a rough and general summary of some ethical principals that various codes address*:Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Do not deceive colleagues, research sponsors, or the to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Never t confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient sible h in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career. Promote their welfare and allow them to make their own t for t your colleagues and treat them to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public education, and discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors not related to scientific competence and in and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal subjects conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable populations; and strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly. Decision making in gh codes, policies, and principals are very important and useful, like any set of rules, they do not cover every situation, they often conflict, and they require considerable interpretation. It is therefore important for researchers to learn how to interpret, assess, and apply various research rules and how to make decisions and to act ethically in various situations. For example, consider the following case,The research protocol for a study of a drug on hypertension requires the administration of the drug at different doses to 50 laboratory mice, with chemical and behavioral tests to determine toxic effects. He therefore decides to extrapolate from the 45 completed results to produce the 5 additional different research ethics policies would hold that tom has acted unethically by fabricating data. If this study were sponsored by a federal agency, such as the nih, his actions would constitute a form of research misconduct, which the government defines as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" (or ffp). It is important to remember, however, that misconduct occurs only when researchers intend to deceive: honest errors related to sloppiness, poor record keeping, miscalculations, bias, self-deception, and even negligence do not constitute misconduct.
The error does not affect the overall results of his research, but it is potentially misleading. Failing to publish a correction would be unethical because it would violate norms relating to honesty and objectivity in are many other activities that the government does not define as "misconduct" but which are still regarded by most researchers as unethical. These are sometimes referred to as "other deviations" from acceptable research practices and include:Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the ting the same paper to different journals without telling the informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you are the sole ing a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the sing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are reviewing for a data, ideas, or methods you learn about while reviewing a grant or a papers without ng outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your ing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving peers adequate information to review your ting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other people in the field or relevant prior hing the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your project will make a significant contribution to the hing the truth on a job application or curriculum the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do it the rking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral g to keep good research g to maintain research data for a reasonable period of derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's ing a student a better grade for sexual a racist epithet in the significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your institution's animal care and use committee or institutional review board for human subjects research without telling the committee or the reporting an adverse event in a human research g animals in ng students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's biosafety ging someone's ng supplies, books, or g an experiment so you know how it will turn unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your research and not disclosing this financial rately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to obtain economic actions would be regarded as unethical by most scientists and some might even be illegal in some cases. However, they do not fall into the narrow category of actions that the government classifies as research misconduct. Indeed, there has been considerable debate about the definition of "research misconduct" and many researchers and policy makers are not satisfied with the government's narrow definition that focuses on ffp. However, given the huge list of potential offenses that might fall into the category "other serious deviations," and the practical problems with defining and policing these other deviations, it is understandable why government officials have chosen to limit their y, situations frequently arise in research in which different people disagree about the proper course of action and there is no broad consensus about what should be done. She receives a request from another research team that wants access to her complete dataset. On the one hand, the ethical norm of openness obliges her to share data with the other research team. Another option would be to offer to collaborate with the following are some step that researchers, such as dr. Wexford, can take to deal with ethical dilemmas in research:What is the problem or issue? In this case, the issue is whether to share information with the other research is the relevant information? In this case, there may be other choices besides 'share' or 'don't share,' such as 'negotiate an agreement' or 'offer to collaborate with the researchers. Do ethical codes or policies as well as legal rules apply to these different options? May be useful to seek advice from a colleague, a senior researcher, your department chair, an ethics or compliance officer, or anyone else you can trust. Wexford might want to talk to her supervisor and research team before making a considering these questions, a person facing an ethical dilemma may decide to ask more questions, gather more information, explore different options, or consider other ethical rules. The main point is that human reasoning plays a pivotal role in ethical decision-making but there are limits to its ability to solve all ethical dilemmas in a finite amount of ing ethical conduct in academic institutions in the us require undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate students to have some education in the responsible conduct of research (rcr). The nih and nsf have both mandated training in research ethics for students and trainees. Many academic institutions outside of the us have also developed educational curricula in research of you who are taking or have taken courses in research ethics may be wondering why you are required to have education in research ethics. Indeed, you also may believe that most of your colleagues are highly ethical and that there is no ethics problem in research.. Indeed, the evidence produced so far shows that misconduct is a very rare occurrence in research, although there is considerable variation among various estimates.
Of researchers per year (based on confirmed cases of misconduct in federally funded research) to as high as 1% of researchers per year (based on self-reports of misconduct on anonymous surveys). Even if misconduct is only a rare occurrence, it can still have a tremendous impact on science and society because it can compromise the integrity of research, erode the public’s trust in science, and waste time and resources. In any case, a course in research ethics will have little impact on "bad apples," one might ing to the "stressful" or "imperfect" environment theory, misconduct occurs because various institutional pressures, incentives, and constraints encourage people to commit misconduct, such as pressures to publish or obtain grants or contracts, career ambitions, the pursuit of profit or fame, poor supervision of students and trainees, and poor oversight of researchers (see shamoo and resnik 2015). In any case, a course in research ethics can be useful in helping to prevent deviations from norms even if it does not prevent misconduct. Education in research ethics is can help people get a better understanding of ethical standards, policies, and issues and improve ethical judgment and decision making. Many of the deviations that occur in research may occur because researchers simply do not know or have never thought seriously about some of the ethical norms of research. Another example where there may be some ignorance or mistaken traditions is conflicts of interest in research. A researcher may think that a "normal" or "traditional" financial relationship, such as accepting stock or a consulting fee from a drug company that sponsors her research, raises no serious ethical issues. Maybe a physician thinks that it is perfectly appropriate to receive a $300 finder’s fee for referring patients into a clinical "deviations" from ethical conduct occur in research as a result of ignorance or a failure to reflect critically on problematic traditions, then a course in research ethics may help reduce the rate of serious deviations by improving the researcher's understanding of ethics and by sensitizing him or her to the y, education in research ethics should be able to help researchers grapple with the ethical dilemmas they are likely to encounter by introducing them to important concepts, tools, principles, and methods that can be useful in resolving these dilemmas. Scientists must deal with a number of different controversial topics, such as human embryonic stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, and research involving animal or human subjects, which require ethical reflection and b. Please enable scripts and reload this shipcurrently ship registration and renewalget involvedmember directoryair awardscode of ethics and professional and functions of institutional researchimproving & transforming ir in postsecondary educationir studiessponsored initiativesaffiliated organizationsao and ir community eventsgraduate educationcode of ethics and professional educationface-to-face educationannual conferenceipeds trainingpublicationsmy learning & lex institute/air research and dissertation fellows programnsf research and dissertation grantsjulia m. Duckwall scholarshipedward delaney l featurestech tipsvisual display of dataask eairir in the knowboard cornerchanging scenejournal newsannouncementsao / ir eventsthank youe-air quick factsleadership and governancehistorystaffcareers at aircontact uspress > membership > code of ethics and professional ship registration and renewalget involvedmember directoryair awards. Elton best paper of ethics and professional practicecurrently of ethics and professional contentthe code of ethics and professional practice (code) of the association for institutional research was developed to provide members of the association with some broad ethical statements with which to guide their professional lives and to identify relevant considerations when ethical uncertainties arise. It was amended on 5/2/2013 and the title was changed to code of ethics and professional practice by the board of directors upon recommendation from a committee drawn from air air code of ethics helps legitimize institutional research as a profession in which integrity and professional standards are essential. Michael williford, ohio universitythe air code of ethics serves as a compass for doing my job professionally and with integrity. Code of ethics and professional practice (code) of the association for institutional research was developed to provide members of the association with some broad ethical statements with which to guide their professional lives and to identify relevant considerations when ethical uncertainties arise. Hence this code is directed to individuals and not institutions although basic tenets contained within the code are also applicable to our colleges and universities and should be compatible with institutional codes and persons who practice institutional research (ir) are a diverse group from many different academic backgrounds and from many different professional experiences. It is precisely for these reasons that this code of ethics and professional practice is of the professions from which ir practitioners come have their own standards or codes for acceptable and even expected performance. This code adds to those existing documents in recognition of the special and different demands inherent in the practice of institutional research. In many institutions the institutional researcher is viewed as the “guardian of truth” or the “conscience” of the institution.
This is an extra burden for institutional researchers, and this code provides some guidance to practitioners who bear that burden. Along with the other professional standards, this code defines a normative expectation for institutional researchers in their work. At the same time, the code provides the foundation for institutional research as a gh it provides standards, the code does not provide a set of rules. Adoption of a code of ethics cannot guarantee ethical behavior or resolution of all disputes. All members of air should pledge to maintain their own competence by continually evaluating their research for scientific accuracy, by conducting themselves in accord with the ethical standards expressed in this code, and by remembering that their ultimate goal is to contribute positively to the field of postsecondary y, this code is a living document that must change and be shaped as the practice of institutional research continues to evolve and n i - of competence. The institutional researcher shall not, in job application, resume, or the ordinary conduct of affairs, claim or imply a degree of competency he/she does not ance of assignments. The institutional researcher shall not accept assignments requiring competencies he/she does not have and for which he/she cannot effectively rely upon the assistance of colleagues, unless the supervisor has been adequately apprised or unless he/she would acquire the necessary competence prior to doing the research. The institutional researcher should use methodologies or techniques that are new to him/her only after appropriate study, training, consultation, and supervision from people who are competent in those methodologies or ng of subordinates. The institutional researcher shall provide subordinates with opportunities for professional growth and sional continuing education. The institutional researcher has the responsibility to develop his/her own professional skills, knowledge, and performance and to keep abreast of changes in the n ii - ivity. The institutional researcher shall approach all assignments with acknowledgement of personal biases and make all attempts to minimize the effect of such biases in the conduct of the cts of interest. The institutional researcher should disclose situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, decisions or the performance of services. Before an assignment is begun, the institutional researcher shall clarify with the sponsor and/or major users the purposes, expectations, strategies, and limitations of the research. Special care shall be taken to recommend research techniques and designs that are appropriate to the purposes of the l care shall be taken to advise the sponsor and/or major users, both at the design phase and, should the occasion arise, at any time during the execution of the project, if there is reason to believe that the strategy under consideration is likely to fail or to yield substantially unreliable fication of responsibility. The institutional researcher shall accept responsibility for the competent execution of all assignments which he/she, or a subordinate, undertakes, and shall display individual and/or office authorship, as appropriate, on all such y of secondary data. The institutional researcher shall exercise reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of data gathered by other individuals, groups, offices, or agencies on which he/she relies, and shall document the sources and quality of such s. The institutional researcher shall ensure that all reports of projects are complete; are clearly written in language understandable to decision-makers; fully distinguish among assumptions, speculations, findings, and judgments; employ appropriate statistics and graphics; adequately describe the limitations of the project, of the analytical method, and of the findings; and follow scholarly norms in the attribution of ideas, methods, and expression and in the sources of ntation. The institutional researcher shall document the sources of information and the process of analysis in each task in sufficient detail to enable a technically qualified colleague to understand what was done and to verify that the work meets all appropriate standards and n iii - here of confidentiality. The institutional researcher shall establish clear guidelines about confidentiality issues within the institutional research e and security. The institutional researcher shall organize, store, maintain, analyze, transfer and/or dispose of data under his/her control in such a manner as to reasonably prevent loss, unauthorized access, or divulgence of confidential e of confidential information.
- masters degree in creative writing
- relevance of literature review in research
- data analysis using spss
The institutional researcher shall permit no release of information about individual persons that has been guaranteed as confidential, to any person inside or outside the institution except in those circumstances in which not to do so would result in clear danger to the subject of the confidential material or to others; or unless directed by competent authority in conformity with a decree of a court of l standards for data collection. The institutional researcher shall, at the design stage of any project, thoroughly explore the degree of invasion of privacy and the risks of breach of confidentiality that are involved in the project, weigh them against potential benefits, and make therefrom a recommendation as to whether the project should be executed, and under what ping specific guidelines. Where appropriate, the institutional researcher shall adopt a written description of any specific steps beyond the regular guidelines within the institutional research office that are necessary during a specific assignment to ensure the protection of aspects of privacy and confidentiality that may be at specific sure of rights. The institutional researcher shall ensure that all subjects are informed of their right of refusal and of the degree of confidentiality with which the material that they provide will be handled, including where appropriate, the implications of any freedom of information statute. The institutional researcher shall apprise institutional authorities of the implications and potentially binding obligations of any promise to respondents regarding confidentiality and shall obtain consent from such authorities where n iv - relationships to the treatment. The institutional researcher shall promote equal access and opportunity regarding employment, services, and other activities of his/her office, without regard to race, creed, gender, national origin, disability or other accidental quality; and in analysis, demeanor, and expression shall be alert to the sensitivities of groups and pment of local codes of ethics. The institutional researcher should develop and promulgate a code of ethics specific to the mission and tasks of the institutional research office and should strive to cooperate with fellow practitioners in the institution in developing an institution-wide code of ethics governing activities in common. The institutional researcher should take reasonable steps to ensure that his/her employers are aware of ethical obligations as set forth in the air code of ethics and professional practice and of the implications of those obligations for work y and archiving. The institutional researcher shall apply all reasonable means to prevent irrevocable loss of data and documentation during its immediately useful life; and, being aware of the role of data as institutional historic resource, shall act as an advocate for its documentation and systematic permanent ment of institutional research. The institutional researcher shall develop and implement regular assessment tools for the evaluation of institutional research utional confidentiality. The institutional researcher shall maintain in strict confidence and security all information in his/her possession about the institution or any of its constituent parts which by institutional policy is considered to be confidential, and shall pursue from section iii of this code all processes for that purpose as are ity of reports. The institutional researcher shall make efforts to anticipate and prevent misunderstandings and misuse of reports within the institution by careful presentation and documentation in original reports, and by diligent follow-up contact with institutional users of those reports. If an institutional research report has been altered, intentionally or inadvertently, to the degree that its meaning has been substantially distorted, the institutional researcher shall make reasonable attempts to correct such distortions and/or to insist that institutional research authorship be removed from the al reporting. The institutional researcher has an obligation to the broader community to submit and/or disseminate accurate information and engage in responsible reporting when requested by legitimate authority, including federal, state, and other governmental agencies and accrediting bodies. With respect to private inquiries, such as those from guidebook editors, journalists, or individuals, the institutional researcher, should he/she respond, is bound by the same standards of accuracy, confidentiality, and professionally responsible sionally responsible interpretation includes consideration of how the requesting individuals or organizations will employ the information. The institutional researcher shall seek opportunities to contribute to and participate in research on issues directly related to the craft and in other professional activities, and shall encourage and support other colleagues in such institutional researcher should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work actually performed and to which he/she has contributed. The institutional researcher should honestly acknowledge the work of and the contributions made by ity of the profession. The institutional researcher should work toward the maintenance and promotion of high standards of practice. The institutional researcher should uphold and advance the values, ethics, knowledge, and mission of the profession. He/she should protect, enhance, and improve the integrity of the profession through appropriate study and research, active discussion, and responsible criticism of the institutional researcher should contribute to the knowledge base and share with colleagues knowledge related to practice, research, and ethics.
The institutional researcher shall take care not to falsely demean the reputation or unjustly or unfairly criticize the work of other institutional etence of colleagues. The institutional researcher who has direct knowledge of a colleague’s incompetence should consult with that colleague when feasible and assist the colleague in taking remedial action. If efforts to change a colleague’s incompetent behavior or practice are unsuccessful, the institutional researcher has an ethical and professional obligation to use the institutional or agency guidelines for reporting such conduct. The institutional researcher shall take appropriate measures to discourage, prevent, identify, and correct unethical conduct of colleagues when their behavior is unwittingly or deliberately in violation of this code or of good general practice in institutional institutional researcher who believes that a colleague has acted unethically should seek resolution by discussing the concerns with the colleague when feasible and when such a discussion is likely to be efforts to change a colleague’s unethical behavior or practice are unsuccessful, the institutional researcher has an ethical and professional obligation to use the institutional or agency guidelines for reporting such d by air membership 12/18/92updates approved by the air board 12/14/01updates approved by the air board 5/2/t information | treatment of may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. The institutional researcher shall take appropriate measures to discourage, prevent, identify, and correct unethical conduct of colleagues when their behavior is unwittingly or deliberately in violation of this code or of good general practice in institutional institutional researcher who believes that a colleague has acted unethically should seek resolution by discussing the concerns with the colleague when feasible and when such a discussion is likely to be efforts to change a colleague’s unethical behavior or practice are unsuccessful, the institutional researcher has an ethical and professional obligation to use the institutional or agency guidelines for reporting such d by air membership 12/18/92updates approved by the air board 12/14/01updates approved by the air board 5/2/t information | treatment of chers have eagerly studied africa’s san people, some of whom are shown here foraging in a grassland. Now, the san have drawn up a code of ethics to govern scientists’ interactions with edwards/national geographic town, south africa—scientists have studied the san people of southern africa for decades, intrigued by their age-old rituals and ancient genetic fingerprints. Earlier this month the group unveiled a code of ethics for researchers wishing to study their culture, genes, or code, published here on 3 march, asks researchers to treat the san respectfully and refrain from publishing information that could be viewed as insulting. Because such sensitivities may not be clear to researchers, the code asks that scientists let communities read and comment on findings before they are published. It also asks that researchers keep their promises and give something back to the community in return for its cooperation. But you get those few individuals who don’t respect the san,” says leana snyders, head of the south african san council in upington, which helped create the san created the code because of past transgressions, including use of insulting language such as the term “bushmen,” using jargon when communicating with the san, failing to consult study communities about findings before publication, and approaching individuals before asking community leaders for permission. Approval by university research ethics committees is not sufficient to comply with the code, snyders adds. The san community needs to be involved in reviewing research proposals and have a say in the design and conclusions, she s also notes that despite all the interest from scientists, the san have not benefited from their star research status. Communicating research results back to the community is paramount, snyders adds, in order to avoid derogatory terms. If it comes to that, we will blacklist and close the door and make sure you don’t come back,” snyders san are not the first indigenous population group to impose such codes on research. The aboriginal australians and canada’s first nations and inuit have drawn up similar codes, which standardize consultation, the benefits due to participating communities, and data storage and access. For now it is formally adopted only in south africa; snyders and her colleagues hope to roll it out to san who live in neighboring botswana and code does not place unrealistic demands on scientists, says himla soodyall, director of the human genomic diversity and disease research unit at south africa’s university of the witwatersrand in johannesburg. But others point out that the code focuses on past transgressions, and doesn’t refer to recent efforts to respect and involve communities, such as guidelines for genomics work on vulnerable populations prepared in 2014 by the human heredity and health in africa program. As a result, the code may present an overly negative view of researchers and discourage communities from participating in studies, says charles rotimi, founding director of the national institutes of health center for research on genomics and global health in bethesda, of data is another potential stumbling block. The san refuse to grant broad consent for other researchers to reuse data for purposes not specified in the original agreement. This restriction is not spelled out in the code, but is the position of the south african san council, snyders says.
Should any other research institution want to use the data, they need to acquire informed consent from the council. Other researchers need to be free to reanalyze the data to come to their own conclusions. Space telescope reveals 20 hidden alien worlds with potential to host electron is still round—for animal research rules, report weighs trimming wfirst to hold down costs.