Topic outline
- Introduction
Introduction
COURSE LEVEL
COURSE CODE
COURSE TITLE
CONTACT PERIODS
LH
Cl.H
TH
PH
CH
CU
Yr1Sem2
CDC9121
Research Ethics
20
00
20
15
45
3
Course Description
Through a combination of theory and practice, during this course student will critically analyze research ethics topics and case studies and learn how to manage and evaluate a research project, all the way from design to publication, from an ethical standpoint. Importantly, during this dynamic course, students will also be encouraged to reflect on the impact of new technologies and social trends on research ethics and discuss their ideas on how to build adequate codes of conduct to regulate research activity.
Course Justification/Rationale
Research ethics is topical and relevant today. Although conducting research is quite fascinating, it is a challenging activity that involves ethical issues such as bias, fraud, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, falsification of research results, informed consent, and attribution of authorship and adequacy of peer review publication processes. By understanding and critically debating research ethics-specific issues, students will assimilate the importance of scientific integrity while acquiring key reasoning skills that will significantly increase the scientific quality and impact of their future research.
Course Objectives
The course aims at promoting integrity in research. This will be achieved because of its centrality on professionalism and integrity in research right from planning, conducting, reporting, and reviewing of research. Specifically, the course targets;
- To instill research ethics among participants to better address any risks and benefits of the research.
- To expose participants to main ethical standards, and outline the operations and review process that research ethics
committees follow.3. To provide scholars with a better understanding of the need to demonstrate integrity in research and in the mentoring ofothers.4. To help trainees identify other ethical challenges in many dimensions of research and learn how to address them.Learning OutcomesAt completion of this course, learners will be able to:
1. Inculcate responsible relationships between researchers and those that will be affected by their research
2. Appreciate, respect and recognize human participants and their value in the research process
3. Follow research ethical guidelines that will promote responsible conduct of research in their institutions and country.
4. Resist from violation of research guidelines and regulations such as abuse of confidentiality, intellectual property rights, data ownership appraisals and publication procedures.
5. To manage research conflicts by recognizing the potential conflict of interests among researchers and authors.
Teaching – Learning Methods
§ Lectures/Discussion
§ Group Demonstrations
§ Class Presentation
§ Self-Directed learning
Teaching and Learning Facilities
§ Lecture facilities
§ Class Rooms
§ White boards / markers / cleaners
§ LCD Projectors, various forms from the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST)
Assessment Strategies
§ Continuous Assessment Tests 40%
§ End of Semester Examinations 60%
§ Total 100%
Recommended Reading and Study Materials
1. Gluck, J.P., Dipasquale, T., Orlans, F.B. 2002. Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2002.
2. World Medical Association. 2002. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Helsinki, Finland: (available at: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm)
3. Long, T. & Johnson, M. 2006. Research Ethics in the Real World: Issues and Solutions for Health and Social Care Professionals. Elsevier
Lecturer: Prof. Zake
zake.muwanga@kiu.ac.ug
tebiggwawo@gmail.com
+256 788 485 749 (also WhatsApp)
The course outline.
- Assignments
Assignments
Indeed, the understanding of ethics is quite varied if not confusing. Which of the different understandings easily relates to your view of life especially concerning your culture? Relate some selected definitions to your culture and show how such could be applied in your research.
- Fundamentals of Ethics
Fundamentals of Ethics
This introduces the essential ideas of moral philosophy, and offers an outline of the good life, normative ethics, metaethics and the doctrines of doing and allowing, as well as the doctrine of double effect, ethical particularism, the desire-satisfaction theory of well-being, moral error theory, and Ross' theory of prima facie duties.
That is, the section provides an overview of ethics as the area of philosophy concerned with how humans ought to behave. Shafer-Landau cautions that the field of ethics—also called moral philosophy—is vast and cannot cover all relevant topics here. The Fundamental of Ethics is therefore mainly an exploration and analysis of prominent ethical theories, separated into three core areas: value theory, normative ethics, and metaethics. The first area, value ethics, attempts to pinpoint the nature and provenance of human well-being. The second, normative ethics, addresses moral relations between individuals and their responsibilities. Finally, metaethics observes and comments on the field of ethics as a whole.
It also covers respect for autonomy; Beneficence; nonmaleficence; and justice.
Definition.
Doing the Right Thing - Natural Law.
Understanding ethical relativism.
Definition.
Different types of ethics.
Ethics and morals
- The History of Research Ethics
The History of Research Ethics
- Why did ethics in research involve human subjects;
- Major historical events that have shaped research involving human subjects;
- Case Studies;
- Belmont Principles;
- Current ethical standards for research.
In 1947, during the Nuremberg War Crime Trials that followed the end of that war, the Nuremberg Code was drafted as a set of standards for judging physicians and scientists who had conducted biomedical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. So, out of the horrors of World War II came the Nuremberg Code, the prototype for human research protection.
We can trace today’s research ethics principles directly to the inhumane experimentation on prisoners in the Nazi death camps during World War II. In 1947, during the Nuremberg War Crime Trials that followed the end of that war, the Nuremberg Code was drafted as a set of standards for judging physicians and scientists who had conducted biomedical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. The code includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion, properly formulated scientific experimentation, and beneficence toward experiment subjects.
This code, along with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 (revised in 1975) and the Belmont Report of 1979, among others, became the prototype of many later codes intended to assure that research involving human subjects would be carried out in an ethical manner. From these evolved the ethics principles of the National Institutes of Health Office of Human Subject Research now governing such research.- 1500s
Mughal emperor Akbar the Great performs an experiment to determine whether children who grow up in a mute environment will learn language. He ordered twelve infants to be raised by mute nurses who communicated with each other via sign language. He later came back to discover that the twelve children did not learn an audible language but instead communicated in sign. Similar experiments have been done by other monarchs, many with the purpose of discovering the “original” language.
- 1620
Etc.- 1500s
- Responsible Conduct of Research
Responsible Conduct of Research
Core norms, principles, regulations, and rules governing the practice of research.
Responsible conduct of research (RCR) is defined as "the practice of scientific investigation with integrity." It involves the awareness and application of established professional norms and ethical principles in the performance of all activities related to scientific research".
Responsibilities of researchers (Based on R14 to R29 of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research)
Researchers are expected to foster and maintain a research environment of intellectual honesty and integrity, and scholarly and scientific rigour. This requires researchers to:
- search for knowledge and understanding;
- conduct research honestly;
- respect the rights of those affected by their research;
- manage conflicts of interest so that ambition and personal advantage do not compromise ethical or scholarly considerations;
- adopt methods appropriate for achieving the aims of each research proposal;
- follow proper practices for safety and security, and comply with relevant legislation, standards and University policies;
- cite awards, degrees conferred and research publications accurately, including the status of any publication, such as review or in press, when giving information about themselves or others;
- promote the adoption of responsible research practice;
- ensure, as far as practicable, that agreements with contractors that they engage to conduct research under the auspices of the University of South Australia include a commitment to follow the general principles of the Code and this Framework or another code that is consistent with these;
- report suspected research misconduct, in accordance with University policies and procedures;
- conform to the policies adopted by their institutions and bodies funding the research; and
- disseminate research findings responsibly
Content Areas
The following content areas are typically included in responsible conduct of research:
- Data acquisition, management, sharing and ownership
- Publication practices and responsible authorship
- Mentorship and mentor training – mentor/mentee responsibilities and relationships (required by NSF)
- Peer review
- Collaborative research
- Research misconduct and questionable Research Practices
- Scientific rigor and reproducibility
- Protection of human subjects
- Welfare of laboratory animals
- Conflicts of interest and commitment
- Safe research environments – harassment, bullying, and inappropriate behavior
- Scientists as responsible members of society
- Contemporary ethical issues in science
- Scientific Misconduct
Scientific Misconduct
Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research.
There are many types of scientific misconduct such as Fabrication; falsification; plagiarism; questionable practices, and can include making up data or results, incorrectly attributing authorship, gift authorship, manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data, graphs, images or results. Questionable research practices encompass a much wider group of misdemeanours, poor research design and other unhealthy practices. Some of these may be deployed in ignorance of the potential consequences for the integrity of the research rather than attempt to mislead – this is often referred to as ‘sloppy science’.
Research Misconduct can be characterised as actions or questionable research practices that fall short of the standards of ethics, research and scholarship required to ensure that the integrity of research is upheld. It can cause harm to people and the environment, wastes resources, undermines the research record and damages the credibility of research.
Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries gave examples of policy definitions. In Denmark, scientific misconduct is defined as "intention[al] negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist", and in Sweden as "intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."[1][2]
A 2009 systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data found that about 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying, fabricating, or modifying data at least once.[3]
Incidents should only be included in this list if the individuals or entities involved have their own Wikipedia articles, or in the absence of an article, where the misconduct incident is covered in multiple reliable sources.
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.Misconduct in research (for example, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) damages the scientific
enterprise, is a misuse of public funds, and undermines the trust of citizens in science and in government.
Misconduct is a special concern for governmental administrators, who are the primary constituency of the
OECD Global Science Forum. On behalf of the public, and to achieve societal benefits, they fund, oversee
and evaluate research, much of which is conducted directly in public institutions or is otherwise sponsored
by governments. At a time when scientific advances are considered to be critical in areas such as
economic competitiveness, health, national security, and environmental protection, public officials are
strongly motivated – indeed obligated – to ensure the highest levels of integrity in research.
Widespread attention has recently focussed on a few cases of misconduct in research. Their significance,
the damage done, and potential preventive measures are debated by scientists, government officials, the
press, and concerned members of the public. Recognising that the issue affects all of these stakeholder
communities and that, like science itself, the problem has a major international dimension, the OECD
Global Science Forum sponsored an international consultation of government-designated officials and
experts, based on an initiative from the Delegations of Japan and Canada.Ensuring integrity in science is a complex, multifaceted task, touching upon education, publication, the
functions of scientific and academic institutions, and the responsibilities of funding agencies. The present
report refers to all of these, but its main focus is on the practical and administrative dimensions of dealing
with allegations of misconduct. A number of countries are currently creating, modifying, or reviewing
their administrative mechanisms for dealing with such allegations. For these countries, the Global Science
Forum workshop and report should be particularly timely, by providing an opportunity for international
consultation, and for learning from the experiences of others. Workshop participants addressed the issue of
integrity in international collaborations, and they deliberated about possible new steps that might be needed
to deal with special problems created by the differences in the ways that collaborating countries deal with
allegations of misconduct.
- Ethical Planning and Conducting Research
Ethical Planning and Conducting Research
Ethics in publishing.
Abstract
The ethical conduct of research on humans requires more than a caring researcher and a legalistic adherence to federal regulations. It requires good planning and managing of issues accruing from the research relationship--communication, risk and perception of risk, and benefits--to all who have a stake in the relationship and outcome. In 1978 the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research identified ethical principles that should govern research on humans. Institutional review boards (IRBs) now exist in every organization that receives federal funding for human-subjects research. Researchers have an obligation to study the requirements of their IRB when they plan their research. Further, they must establish appropriate procedures for obtaining informed consent and assessing risk, risk perception, and ways to increase the benefits of research.
Abstract
Countries that still do not have a national normative document on research ethics, like most African and Latin American countries, have taken the Declaration of Helsinki as a reference for ethical guidance to researchers and members of ethics committees. However, the literature has shown that the latest revisions of this declaration have tended to favor the interests of central countries and their industries, mainly through the more flexible acceptance of greater risks and smaller benefits. Even when there are norms adequate to the reality of each country, the ethical planning of a research goes far beyond the simple bureaucratic fulfillment of the norms that guide the presentation of a protocol and a consent term to a research ethics committee. It presupposes an in-depth reflection on the methodological procedures themselves that will involve the participants and on the ways in which they interact with the socioeconomic and cultural contexts of these participants' daily lives. In developing countries, consideration of social vulnerability, especially with regard to poverty and low levels of education, is a central element in this planning. I intend to discuss this planning taking the three classic axes of research subject protection: obtaining consent, minimizing risks and maximizing benefits in their relationship with contexts of social vulnerability in three modalities of health research: those that handle information from identifiable subjects, such as clinical protocols; those using interviews and questionnaires; and clinical trials for new drugs.
- Conflict of Interest in Publishing