Ethics In Scientific Research

2.1

Introduction

The Webster's 1913 Dictionary defines Ethics as The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions. Research Ethics involves the application of fundamental ethical principles to a variety of topics involving Scientific Research. These include the design and implementation of research involving human experimentation, animal experimentation, various aspects of academic scandal, including scientific misconduct (such as fraud, fabrication of data and plagiarism), whistleblowing; regulation of research, etc. The scientific research enterprise is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical scientific conduct. There are many ethical issues to be taken into serious consideration for research. The main moral theories that apply to individual behaviour in the conduct of Scientific and Engineering Research include Virtue, Duty, Non-Malfeasance, and Autonomy. Researchers need to be aware of having the responsibility to secure the actual permission and interests of all those involved in the study. They should not misuse any of the information discovered, and there should be a certain moral responsibility maintained towards the participants. There is a duty to protect the rights of people in the study as well as their privacy and sensitivity. The confidentiality of those involved in the observation must be carried out, keeping their anonymity and privacy secure. All of these ethics must be honoured unless there are other overriding reasons to do so - for example, any illegal or terrorist activity. In terms of research publications, a number of key issues include and are not restricted to honesty, Review Process, Ethical Standards and Authorship. Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have norms for behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. These norms also help members of the discipline to coordinate their actions or activities and to establish the public's trust of the discipline. For instance, ethical norms govern conduct in medicine, law, engineering, and business. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative activities, and there is a specialized discipline, research ethics, which studies these norms. There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. 

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 avoid error.



Since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among many different people in different disciplines and institutions, many of these 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 prematurely.



Many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public. For instance, federal policies on research misconduct, on conflicts of interest, on the human subjects protections, and on 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 public.



Ethical norms in research also help to build public support for research. People more likely to fund research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of research.



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 health and safety. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm to 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 and staff and students.

2.2

Scientific Misconduct

2.2.1

Definition

Scientific Misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research. This may involve:

 

2.2.2

Intentional or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist Intentional 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 Motivation to Commit Scientific Misconduct

According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there are three main motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised here. Career Pressure: Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding; and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or famehungry) scientists to fabricate results. To this category may also be added paranoia that there are other scientists out there who are close to success in the same experiment, which puts extra pressure on being the first one. A main source of detection comes when other research teams in fact fail or get different results. Pride: Even on the rare occasions when scientists do falsify data, they almost never do so with the active intent to introduce false information into the body of scientific knowledge. Rather, they intend to introduce a fact that they believe is true, without going to the trouble and difficulty of actually performing the experiments required. The ability to get away with it: In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artefacts and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can expect to get away with it - or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There is no "scientific police" which is trained to fight scientific crimes, all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It is relatively easy to cheat. Money: There is the additional incentive of money. If one has a promising proposal in area where federal or other grant money or funding is available especially in new technologies where there is no existing standard against which to compare, the submission of preliminary data cannot be confirmed until further research is done. Ideology: While perhaps the least common incentive, it is still there. The classic example would be anti-abortionists claiming sonograms show the silent scream of an aborted fetus demonstrates the fetus is alive with feeling, while proabortionists would submit demographic studies showing that woman who considered abortion but later decided against it are doomed to life of dependency on welfare, lower socio-economic status, relationship abuse, child abuse, drug abuse, etc. 2.2.3

Forms of Scientific Misconduct Fabrication: the publication of deliberately false or misleading research, often subdivided into: 

Obfuscation – The Omission of critical data or results. Example: Only reporting positive outcomes and not adverse outcomes.



Fabrication – the actual making up of research data and (the intent of) publishing them, sometimes referred to as "drylabbing".



Falsification – manipulation of research data and processes in order to reflect or prevent a certain result.



Bare Assertions – making entirely unsubstantiated claims

Another form of fabrication is where references are included to give arguments the appearance of widespread acceptance, but are actually fake, and/or do not support the argument. Plagiarism: the act of taking credit (or attempting to take credit) for the work of another. A subset is citation plagiarism – wilful or negligent failure to appropriately credit other or prior discoverers, so as to give an improper impression of priority. This is also known as, "citation amnesia", the "disregard syndrome" and "bibliographic negligence". Arguably, this is the most common type of scientific misconduct. Sometimes it is difficult to guess whether authors intentionally ignored a highly relevant cite or lacked knowledge of the prior work. Discovery credit can also be inadvertently reassigned from the original discoverer to a better-known researcher. This is a special case of the Matthew Effect (For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. Matthew 25:29, New Revised Standard Version). Self-Plagiarism: multiple publication of the same content with different titles and/or in different journals is sometimes also considered misconduct; scientific journals explicitly ask authors not to do this. It is referred to as "salami". This includes publishing the same article in a different language. The violation of Ethical Standards Regarding Human and Animal Experiments: such as the standard that a human subject of the experiment must give informed consent to the experiment. Ghost-Writing: the phenomenon where someone other than the named author(s) makes a major contribution. Typically, this is done to mask contributions from drug companies. It incorporates plagiarism and has an additional element of financial fraud. Conversely, research misconduct is not limited to NOT listing authorship, but also includes the conferring authorship on those that have not made substantial contributions to the research. This is done by senior researchers who muscle their way onto the papers of inexperienced junior researchers as well as others that stack authorship in an effort to guarantee publication. This is much harder to prove due to a lack of consistency in defining "authorship" or "substantial contribution". Misappropriation of Data: Literally stealing the work and results of others and publishing as to make it appear the author had performed all the work under which the data was obtained. In addition, some academics consider suppression--the failure to publish significant findings due to the results being adverse to the interests of the researcher or his/her sponsor(s)--to be a form of misconduct as well; In some cases, scientific misconduct may also constitute violations of the law, but not always. Being accused of the activities described in here is a serious matter for a practicing scientist, with severe consequences should it be determined that a researcher intentionally or carelessly engaged in misconduct.

2.3

Categories of Scientific Misconduct

Unethical Conduct by Researchers  Cover-up of errors  Misuse of funds  Fabrication of data  Deletion of data without justification  Falsification of data  Making major protocol deviations  Unorthodox manipulation of data during analysis  Performance of unauthorized human or animal experiments  Performance of inappropriate statistical analyses  Knowingly participating in unauthorized human or animal experiments  Failing to report wrongs when there is a responsibility to do so  Misrepresentation or purposeful exclusion of relevant data from others  Misrepresentation of originality of ideas, writings, software, and hardware-Plagiarism Major Ethical Transgressions by Authors Describing data or artefacts that do not exist Describing documents or objects that have been forged Misrepresenting real data or deliberately distorting evidence or data Presenting another’s ideas, text, or work without attribution(plagiarism), including deliberate violation of copyright  Omitting negative results from corollary experiments Minor Ethical Transgressions by Authors    

 Failing to assume the null hypothesis  Misrepresenting authorship by omitting an author  Misrepresenting authorship by including a noncontributing author  Misrepresenting publication status  Failure to mention equally likely interpretations or hypotheses not tested or not testable  Citing work irrelevant or unsupportive to a point being made  Citing work as proving a point that it does not  Citing literature without verifying the legitimate source of the citation  Omitting citing the work of competitors whose work has been represented Ethical Transgressions by Reviewers  Misrepresenting facts or lying in communications with authors or editors  Unreasonably delaying review in order to achieve personal gain  Stealing ideas or text from a manuscript under review  Allowing conflict of interest to bias recommendations for publication Ethical Transgressions by Editors or Staff    

Forging or fabricating a referee’s report Lying to the author about the review process Stealing ideas or text from a manuscript under review Allowing conflict of interest to bias acceptability of a maniscript

There are many other activities that the regulatory bodies do not define as "misconduct" but which are still regarded by most researchers as unethical. These are sometimes called "other deviations" from acceptable research practices. Some of these might include:   

Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors Submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you are the sole inventor

               

         

Including 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 paper Discussing with your colleagues data from a paper that you are reviewing for a journal Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your research Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving peers adequate information to review your work Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other people in the field or relevant prior work Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your project will make a significant contribution to the field Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vita Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do it the fastest Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral students Keeping original data at home or taking it with you when you move Failing to maintain research data for a reasonable period of time Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's submission Promising a student a better grade for sexual favors Using a racist epithet in the laboratory Making 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 board Not reporting an adverse event in a human research experiment Wasting animals in research Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's biosafety rules Rejecting a manuscript for publication without even reading it Sabotaging someone's work Stealing supplies, books, or data Rigging an experiment so you know how it will turn out Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs Owning over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your research and not disclosing this financial interest Deliberately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to obtain economic benefits

2.4 The Ethics of Scientific Research: Values and Principles Truth 1.1 The scientist is concerned with the expansion of human knowledge of the world, the deepening of human understanding of its aspects, and the enhancement of human ability to exploit this knowledge for the achievement of goals vital to humanity, or having social merit. 1.2 The scientist serves these goals, in every branch of science, by acting in accordance with the methods of scientific research in each branch, and the rules of conduct in the scientific community in general. Freedom 2.1 The scientist serves the goals of scientific research, based on the principle of scientific research freedom, which is one of the most prominent expressions of the democratic system. 2.2 The scientist undertakes the obligation to comply with practical restrictions imposed upon freedom of scientific research by the principles of the democratic system, for the adequate safeguarding of human life, welfare, dignity and liberty. 2.3 The scientist in willing to undertake the obligation to comply with practical restrictions in the areas of development and application, to the extent that these are required by social or economic considerations, in keeping with the principles of the democratic system. Responsibility

3.1 The scientist bears full responsibility for every scientific research or experiment he or she conducts, particularly with regard to its direct effect on human lives and on human physical and mental health, welfare, dignity and liberty. 3.2 The scientist bears special responsibility for such direct effects upon those participating as patients or subjects, in scientific research or experimentation. The principles of the Helsinki Declaration regarding clinical experiments upon humans determine the scientist's threshold of responsibility, and it was in the spirit of these principles that the threshold of responsibility in non-clinical human experimentation was established. 3.3 The scientist pays real heed to considerations regarding the very need to use animals in planned or conducted research and experimentation, and to considerations regarding the lives and welfare of the animals being used, particularly with regard to minimising the suffering that may be inflicted upon them during the course of the experiment or thereafter. 3.4 The scientist acts out of a sense of responsibility, on grounds of which they constantly take into account in the knowledge that the results of his or her research may be used to attain goals within a wide range, from the beneficial to humanity to the criminal and abhorrent. Integrity 4.1 The scientist performs every scientific act in accordance with all of the requirements of the scientific method within the framework of which he or she works, and at the highest standards 4.2 The scientist analyses data and , generalisations, experiments and theories, whether his or her own or another's, equitably, and with the requisite scope, depth and precision. 4.3 The scientist presents his or her data in full, precisely, frankly and fairly. Collaboration 5.1 The scientist acts within a universal framework of scientific collaboration, based on the shared scientific goals. 5.2 The scientist fosters scientific collaboration by maintaining an atmosphere of openness, mutual assistance and trust among scientists, their assistants and students. 5.3 The scientist merits individual, collective and institutional credit and may possess pursuant rights to intellectual property. for scientific achievements to which he or she has made a unique or significant contribution, Professionalism 6.1 The scientist engages in his or her scientific pursuits in a wholly professional manner, making judicious and continual use of the special knowledge, particular to his or her area of expertise. 6.2 The scientist strives to keep abreast of developments in his or her area of expertise and in every area of knowledge pertinent to his or her work. 6.3 The scientist draws practical conclusions in the field of ethics of scientific research from the values and principles of scientific research. 6.4 The scientist imparts the values and principles of scientific research to all those conducting research or experimentation under his or her supervision, particularly to students in every course of study serving to prepare them for professional activity within the scientific research community.

2.5

Codes and Policies for Research Ethics

Given 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 USA 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 the Uniform Requirements (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), the Chemist's Code of Conduct (American Chemical Society), Code of Ethics (American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science) Ethical Principles of Psychologists (American Psychological Association), Statements on Ethics and Professional Responsibility (American Anthropological Association), Statement on Professional Ethics (American Association of University Professors), The Nuremberg Code and The Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association). The following is a rough and general summary of some ethical principals that various codes address*: Honesty Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, and publication status. Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data. Do not deceive colleagues, granting agencies, or the public.

Objectivity Strive 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. Avoid or minimize bias or self-deception. Disclose personal or financial interests that may affect research. Integrity Keep your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for consistency of thought and action. Carefulness Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals. Openness Share data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Be open to criticism and new ideas. Respect for Intellectual Property Honour patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. Do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission. Give credit where credit is due. Give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research. Never plagiarize. Confidentiality Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records. Responsible Publication Publish in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career. Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication. Responsible Mentoring Help to educate, mentor, and advise students. Promote their welfare and allow them to make their own decisions. Respect for colleagues Respect your colleagues and treat them fairly. Social Responsibility Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public education, and advocacy. Non-Discrimination Avoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors that are not related to their scientific competence and integrity. Competence Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole. Legality Know and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies. Animal Care Show proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments. Human Subjects Protection When 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. 2.6

Responsible Authorship

Authorship is an explicit way of assigning responsibility and giving credit for intellectual work. The two are linked. Authorship practices should be judged by how honestly they reflect actual contributions to the final product. Authorship is important to the reputation, academic promotion, and grant support of the individuals involved as well as to the strength and reputation of their institution.

Many institutions, including medical schools and peer-reviewed journals, have established standards for authorship. These standards are similar on basic issues but are changing over time, mainly to take into account the growing proportion of research that is done by teams whose members have highly specialized roles. In practice, various inducements have fostered authorship practices that fall short of these standards. Junior investigators may believe that including senior colleagues as authors will improve the credibility of their work and its chances of publication, whether or not those colleagues have made substantial intellectual contributions to the work. They may not want to offend their chiefs, who hold substantial power over their employment, research opportunities, and recommendations for jobs and promotion. Senior faculty might wish to be seen as productive researchers even though their other responsibilities prevent them from making direct contributions to their colleagues' work. They may have developed their views of authorship when senior investigators were listed as authors because of their logistic, financial, and administrative support alone. Disputes sometimes arise about who should be listed as authors of an intellectual product and the order in which they should be listed. When disagreements over authorship arise, they can take a substantial toll on the good will, effectiveness, and reputation of the individuals involved and their academic community. Many such disagreements result from misunderstanding and failed communication among colleagues and might have been prevented by a clear, early understanding of standards for authorship that are shared by the academic community as a whole. Discussions of authorship in academic medical centres usually concern published reports of original, scientific research. However, the same principles apply to all intellectual products: words or images; in paper or electronic media; whether published or prepared for local use; in scientific disciplines or the humanities; and whether intended for the dissemination of new discoveries and ideas, for published reviews of existing knowledge, or for educational programs. Guidelines for Authorship Everyone who is listed as an author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work. For example (in the case of a research report) they should have contributed to the conception, design, analysis and/or interpretation of data. Honorary or guest authorship is not acceptable. Acquisition of funding and provision of technical services, patients, or materials, while they may be essential to the work, are not in themselves sufficient contributions to justify authorship. Everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the work should be an author. Everyone who has made other substantial contributions should be acknowledged. When research is done by teams whose members are highly specialized, individual's contributions and responsibility may be limited to specific aspects of the work. All authors should participate in writing the manuscript by reviewing drafts and approving the final version. One author should take primary responsibility for the work as a whole even if he or she does not have an indepth understanding of every part of the work. This primary author should assure that all authors meet basic standards for authorship and should prepare a concise, written description of their contributions to the work, which has been approved by all authors. This record should remain with the sponsoring department. Order of authorship Many different ways of determining order of authorship exist across disciplines, research groups, and countries. Examples of authorship policies include descending order of contribution, placing the person who took the lead in writing the manuscript or doing the research first and the most experienced contributor last, and alphabetical or random order. While the significance of a particular order may be understood in a given setting, order of authorship has no generally agreed upon meaning. As a result, it is not possible to interpret from order of authorship the respective contributions of individual authors. Promotion committees, granting agencies, readers, and others who seek to understand how

individual authors have contributed to the work should not read into order of authorship their own meaning, which may not be shared by the authors themselves. The authors should decide the order of authorship together. Authors should specify in their manuscript a description of the contributions of each author and how they have assigned the order in which they are listed so that readers can interpret their roles correctly. The primary author should prepare a concise, written description of how order of authorship was decided.