Research ethics articles
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. 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. 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.
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. Icist and niehs irb d@ch ethics in journal : speak with your ch ethics in journal ial standards and ght and intellectual sible publication arts and sample 's best practice guidelines on publishing ch ethics in journal rights, privacy, and es and ering clinical is good practice for journals to adopt publication policies to ensure that ethical and responsible research is published, and that all necessary consents and approvals have been obtained from authors to publish their work. Human rights, privacy, and manuscripts reporting medical studies involving human participants, it is suggested that journals require authors to provide a statement identifying the ethics committee that approved the study, and that the study conforms to recognized standards, for example:Declaration of federal policy for the protection of human an medicines agency guidelines for good clinical standards encourage authors to conduct studies in a way that ensures adequate steps have been taken to minimize harm to participants, to avoid coercion or exploitation, to protect confidentiality, and to minimize the risk of physical and psychological the scholarly disciplines there are variations in practice around privacy and confidentiality, relative to the risks of participation and the reasonable expectations of the biomedical sciences, editors should consider only publishing information and images from individual participants where the authors have obtained the individual's free prior informed consent. For voices or images of any human subject, permission according to applicable national laws must be sought from research participants before recording.
The care guidelines are useful for editors who publish case the social sciences and humanities, there are numerous ethical guidelines for researchers working with human participants. Social science and humanities researchers regularly work with audio and video materials gathered in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, wherever appropriate, social scientists are also responsible for protecting the confidentiality of human participants, and obtaining informed consent from all participants by openly communicating any and all information that is likely to influence their willingness to participate (for example, sponsorship, purpose and anticipated outcomes, and possible consequences that publication of the research may have for participants). Guidelines include those from the american sociological association, international society of ethnobiology, and american anthropological social research data the association of social anthropologists of the uk and the commonwealth suggests in its "ethical guidelines for good research practice" that it is not always possible or necessary to gain written consent to publish, particularly when researchers are working with people with limited literacy or in cultures where formal bureaucratic procedures are problematic. Cultures and office for human research protection has a searchable database of independent community institutional review boards that approve research and publication of culturally sensitive materials. More information is provided in "principles and procedures: conducting research in a maori context" from waikato institute of technology and "community irbs and research review boards: shaping the future of community-engaged research" from albert einstein college of is recognition of increasing innovation in the management of joint copyright in relation to intercultural research, to enable appropriate legal acknowledgment of intellectual property in attribution and acknowledgment. In addition:Editors should be conscious of the ethics surrounding publication of images of human remains, and should recognize that human remains are perceived differently in different cultures. Animals in ch involving animals should be conducted with the same rigor as research in humans. International council for laboratory animal science has published ethical guidelines for editors and ls should encourage authors to adhere to animal research reporting standards, for example the arrive reporting guidelines, which describe the details journals should require from authors regarding:Study design and statistical mental mental g and ls should ask authors to confirm that ethical and legal approval was obtained prior to the start of the study, and state the name of the body giving the approval. Authors should also state whether experiments were performed in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and authors should cite compliance with the us national research council's "guide for the care and use of laboratory animals," the us public health service's "policy on humane care and use of laboratory animals," and "guide for the care and use of laboratory animals.
Authors outside the uk should conform to directive 2010/63/s may ask authors to describe in their articles how discomfort, distress, and pain were avoided and minimized, and to confirm that animals did not suffer unnecessarily at any stage of an s may request that reviewers comment on the standard of experimental reporting, experimental design, or any other aspects of the study reported that may cause concern. If concerns are raised or clarifications are needed, they may need to request evidence of ethical research approval or question ls should ask authors to inform them at the time of manuscript submission if their study has potential for both benevolent and malevolent application. Should ask these authors to conform to the national science advisory board for biosecurity (nsabb) guidelines for dual use life sciences research. The june 2007 nsabb report presents a useful description and discussion of "dual use research of concern. Reporting te and complete reporting enables readers to fully appraise research, replicate it, and use it. Editors should encourage authors to follow their discipline's guidelines for accurate and complete reporting of research. Editors, working with peer reviewers, should ensure that authors provide the information readers need to evaluate the methods and results, so that readers can reach their own health research, the equator network promotes useful reporting life sciences, useful reporting guidelines are promoted by future of research communications and e-scholarship (force11). Specific reporting guidance that editors can recommend for animal experiments include the arrive guidelines, the national research council's institute for laboratory animal research guidelines, and the gold standard publication checklist from hooijmans and rds for reporting animal studies are discussed in more detail by landis and r guidelines and standards in bioscience are promoted on the minimum information guidelines from diverse bioscience communities (mibbi) website and by the biosharing ock reporting guidelines are provided by the reflect ad the full ch ethics in journal ch ethics in journal : speak with your ch ethics in journal ial standards and ght and intellectual sible publication arts and sample 's best practice guidelines on publishing ch ethics in journal rights, privacy, and es and ering clinical is good practice for journals to adopt publication policies to ensure that ethical and responsible research is published, and that all necessary consents and approvals have been obtained from authors to publish their work. Specific reporting guidance that editors can recommend for animal experiments include the arrive guidelines, the national research council's institute for laboratory animal research guidelines, and the gold standard publication checklist from hooijmans and rds for reporting animal studies are discussed in more detail by landis and r guidelines and standards in bioscience are promoted on the minimum information guidelines from diverse bioscience communities (mibbi) website and by the biosharing ock reporting guidelines are provided by the reflect ad the full ch ethics in journal es on research ying 1 - 20 of 43 ethical mindfield of ai procedures aim to protect research participants from harm. Stories about researchers who have dabbled in self-experimentation – with varying complete a short survey about the podcast, please click here https:///r/ to wipe out science rstock/science the risk of a criminal conviction enough to deter scientists from publishing bogus research findings?
But concerns over how that information is protected may hold some people concept of benefit sharing ensures that all who take part in research have sone form of gain from ch should not only benefit the researchers. New report on the future of humanity explains what we really need to be worrying about over the next 35 much of the research in these journals could be reproduced? Nazis subjected jews, political prisoners and other ‘undesirables’ to a range of experiments that resulted in death and horror of the human experiments by nazi doctors led to the nuremberg code but the international declaration it inspired was watered down for political first part of our series on human experiments looks at the parameters of human research and its ethical se desert rock i buster jangle federal government of the united states [public domain], via wikimedia human experiments: what lies behind some of the most shocking human experiments in recent history? Its mission nearly over, messenger is about to crash into the planet it's been ch ethics panels could benefit from more people with skin in the all researchers were required to serve time on an ethics committee, not only would the system look entirely different, human research subjects might get greater tions of research ethics do not benefit from a tick-box controversial research is questioned, it's worth asking if it's for the right reasons. Truly deep thinker must draw on both science and the evolution of science and engineering in the 21st century has transformed the role of these professions in profound ways that affect research, scholarship and the practice of teaching in the university…. Research excellence of academics is often measured by the quantity and quality of their scholarly publications. Research ific t professor, university of western ate professor, school of economics, lecturer in medical ethics and law, st george's, university of ate professor of medical ethics, flinders er in sociology and media studies, lancaster director (research), university of sor; biotechnology program director, the university of harvey is a friend of the ate professor, school of public health and preventive medicine, monash and phd candidate, australian national sity of lecturer in marine ecology & head of blue carbon lab, deakin sor of medicine, monash ant professor, school of law, university of ry associate, australian institute for primary care and ageing, la trobe ch leader, critical and ethical mental health research group, robinson research institute, university of read on the on bulawayo/ photo/ricardo photo/steve karnowski). To our us on social l > research methods & cting / sion ch ethics is aimed at all readers and authors interested in ethical issues in the conduct of research, the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of research. The journal aims to promote, provoke, host and engage in open and public debate about research ethics on an international scale but also to contribute to the education of researchers and reviewers of research. Research ethics publishes original papers and review articles as well as informative case studies, and offers a home for submissions from authors from around the world.
The quality of submitted articles is evaluated independently by double-blind peer journal is a member of the committee on publication ethics (cope). Ethics is aimed at all readers and authors interested in ethical issues in the conduct of research, the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of research. The journal aims to promote, provoke, host and engage in open and public debate about research ethics on an international scale but also to contribute to the education of researchers and reviewers of ch ethics publishes original papers and review articles as well as informative case studies, and offers a home for submissions from authors from around the world. The quality of submitted articles is evaluated independently by double-blind peer ational advisory al university of singapore, sity of southampton, sity of bristol, mason university, lasian human research ethics consultancy services, university, ie mellon university, sity of otago, new sity of oxford, 's college london, al university of ireland, galway, k business school, 's college london, n university, currently ript submission guidelines: research journal is a member of the committee on publication manuscripts of sufficient quality that meet the aims and scope of research ethics will be are no fees payable to submit or publish in this part of the submission process you will be required to warrant that you are submitting your original work, that you have the rights in the work, that you are submitting the work for first publication in the journal and that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has not already been published elsewhere, and that you have obtained and can supply all necessary permissions for the reproduction of any copyright works not owned by do we publish? Submitting your manuscript to research ethics, please ensure you have read the aims & ch ethics publishes original papers and review articles as well as informative case studies on ethical issues in research, the regulation of research and the procedures and process of ethical review. The journal encourages the submission of the following types of paper:Original papers: these papers will cover topics related to ethical issues in research or its regulation. Submissions of such papers normally up to 6,000 words but longer articles will not be original papers: these papers, normally up to 3,000 words, will likewise address issues which relate either to the ethical conduct of research, the process of ethical review in research or to the procedures that underpin ethics committee activity. Submissions of case studies can be up to 1,500 words in reports: these reports will focus on committee practice, researcher’s experiences or meetings and conferences focused on research ethics. Such reports should be up to 1,500 articles: such an article will address key issues in research ethics or focus on under-researched topics. Rather than introducing new material, review articles are more educational in nature and explain the core issues in a particular area.
Review articles should be between 3,000 and 6,000 reviews: the editors invite reviews, between 500-1,000 words, of books on research ethics. If you would be interested in being invited to carry out book reviews for research ethics as books are received, please email the editors at rea@. 1 peer review research papers submitted for publication in research ethics will be subject to double-blind peer review. Research ethics operates a strictly anonymous peer review process in which the reviewer’s name is withheld from the author and, the author’s name from the reviewer. Is not necessary to disclose use of language polishing supply any personal acknowledgements separately to the main text to facilitate anonymous peer ch ethics requires all authors to acknowledge their funding in a consistent fashion under a separate heading. Please visit the funding acknowledgements page on the sage journal author gateway to confirm the format of the acknowledgment text in the event of funding, or state that: this research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 5 declaration of conflicting is the policy of research ethics to require a declaration of conflicting interests from all authors enabling a statement to be carried within the paginated pages of all published ensure that a ‘declaration of conflicting interests’ statement is included at the end of your manuscript, after any acknowledgements and prior to the references. We encourage authors to refer to the committee on publication ethics’ international standards for authors and view the publication ethics page on the sage author ch ethics and sage take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. 3 open access and author ch ethics offers optional open access publishing via the sage choice programme.
3 supplementary ch ethics does not currently accept supplemental ch ethics adheres to the sage harvard reference style. For further guidance on submitting your manuscript online please visit scholarone online part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent and fair peer review process sage is a supporting member of orcid, the open researcher and contributor id. Orcid provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities ensuring that their work is encourage all authors to add their orcids to their sage track accounts and include their orcids as part of the submission process. 2 online first first allows final articles (completed and approved articles awaiting assignment to a future issue) to be published online prior to their inclusion in a journal issue, which significantly reduces the lead time between submission and publication. Visit the sage journals help page for more details, including how to cite online first articles. Further correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the manuscript submission process should be sent to the research ethics editorial office as follows:The editors, research ethics, office 13 cherry drive durham dh6 2bgrea@ts and dual subscription, print utional subscription, utional subscription, print utional subscription, combined (print & e-access).