ETHICAL ISSUES IN
RESEARCH
KRITHIKA GANESAN
FACULTY: DR SANTHOSH M
“THE GLASS IN THE FIELD” BY JAMES
THURBER
“HE WHO HESITATES IS SOMETIMES SAVED.”
JOHNSON AND TUDOR (1939)
• Studied whether label of ‘stutterer’ would affect fluency in children
• Addressed children in a state-run orphanage:
“The staff has come to the conclusion that you have a great deal of trouble with your speech. The
types of interruptions which you have are very undesirable. These interruptions indicate
stuttering. You have many of the symptoms of a child who is beginning to stutter.”
(Tudor, 1939, p.10)
• Also told caregivers to stop children when they had interruptions
• Results indicated:
“…every subject reacted to his speech interruptions in some manner. Some hung their heads;
others laughed with embarrassment. In every case the children’s behaviour changed noticeably…”
(Tudor, 1939, p.147)
• Silverman (1988)—
• When child must monitor own speech, can cause increase in disfluencies, may even lead to stuttering
• Ambrose and Yairi (2002)—
• Study may have caused unpleasant reaction but no lasting effects possible
WHAT IS ETHICS?
• “Moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity”—Oxford
Dictionary
• In Research:
—shape planning, methodology, and the reporting of any research
ToTouse
further
humane
scientific
research
knowledge
methods
The Moral Dilemma of a Health Researcher
PROFESSIONAL VALUES IN HEALTH
RESEARCH
• Altruism—only concerned with other people’s well being.
• Equality—considers all individuals equal.
• Freedom—allows participants to make their own choices.
• Justice—acts with fairness and equity.
• Dignity—recognizes and values every individual’s worth.
• Truth—reports the complete truth and only the truth.
• Prudence—can discipline themselves by using logic and reason.
HISTORY OF ETHICS (…OR LACK THEREOF)
• 1932-72—Tuskegee Syphilis Study (withholding treatment despite availability)
• 1939-45—Experiments on Concentration Camp prisoners by Nazis
• 1944-80’s—U.S. Gov’t sponsored study on radiation effects in humans
• 1947—Nuremberg Code
• 1953—Watson and Crick steal X-Ray diffraction data from Rosalind Franklin
• 1956-80—Hepatitis Experiments on children with mental disabilities (approved by state
department of health)
• 1964—Helsinki Declaration
• 1979—Belmont Report
• 1987—Martin Luther King accused of plagiarising Ph. D dissertation
• 2010—Lancet retracts fraudulent paper from 1998 linking autism to measles vaccine
PROTECTION OF HUMAN PARTICIPANTS
• Autonomy—Decision to participate fully in the hands of the subject.
• Free and Informed Consent—Participant must know exactly what will entail in the research method and risks and
benefits.
• Components of informed consent:
• Disclosure
• Understanding
• Voluntariness
• Competence
• Consent
• Exculpatory Language
BELMONT REPORT PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS
Respect Beneficen
for Persons ce
Justice
• Veracity—Any information given to the participant must be true.
• Respect for Vulnerable Persons e.g. young children, older adults, or persons with disabilities
• Privacy and Confidentiality—Keep participant information private unless participant gives free
and informed consent to release
• Justice and Inclusiveness—No personal discrimination by researcher.
• Harms and Benefits—Benefits maximised (beneficence) and risks minimised (non-maleficence).
• Participant Centred Perspective—Persuasion to participate based on study, not other means.
ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EXPERIMENTAL
PROCESS
• RESEARCH DESIGN
• SAMPLE
• DATA COLLECTION
RESEARCH DESIGN
• Design must ensure minimal harm to all subjects—
• Between groups designs reduce a subject’s exposure to possible harm
• E.g. studies involving invasive measures
• Intervention studies—some deserving subjects may not get treatment
• Within groups designs give everyone access to intervention
• E.g. studies for efficacy of therapy methods
SAMPLE
• Purpose of study to generalize results to larger population
• Sample size and the method must suit this goal
• Otherwise results of study may misrepresent population
DATA COLLECTION
• Questions to be answered before data collection:
• What sort of data is going to be collected? If there is identifying information in it, why is it necessary?
• How is the data going to be collected? Is there going to be any harm or inconvenience to subjects
during data collection? Will subjects be informed that this data is going to be used for study purposes?
• Who is going to collect it? Will there be any conflicts of interests or personal biases that occur when this
person collects the data?
• How and where will it be stored? Will it be electronic, or paper storage? Will the storage be secure
enough to keep the data confidential?
• How long will the data be stored for beyond analysis? Will there be any justifiable reason to keep the
data, and will participants be informed?
• Who will make sure data is not manipulated before or during analysis?
REPORTING RESEARCH FINDINGS
• AUTHORSHIP
• CITATION
• RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
AUTHORSHIP
• ‘Gift’ or Honorary authorship weakens strength of study
• Ghost writing, though common, is also unadvisable
• Considered author only if significant intellectual contribution to study
• Any other contributor gets acknowledgment
• Authors get both credit and accountability
CITATION
• Citations must be complete, relevant, error-free, formatted correctly
• Should preferably cite an original article rather than a line of description of a particular study in
another review article.
• Must also cite conference presentations, posters, or conversations
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
• Fabrication
• When researcher makes up their own data or results
• Falsification
• When researcher manipulates equipment to report incorrect results, omits results, or changes the
results
• Plagiarism
• When researcher uses another person’s words, ideas, processes, or results without giving due credit
CONFLICTS IN RESEARCH
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST
• CONFLICT OF COMMITMENT
• CONFLICT OF VALUES
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
• When a researcher’s personal, or financial relationships can clash with their professional judgement
• Can occur for either financial or personal reasons.
• If funding agency may expect a certain result to continue funding, especially if that result furthers the
company’s own commercial gains
• If supervisors, family members, or colleagues influence the direction of a study, the awarding of a
grant, or the final research findings
• Funding agencies may ask researcher to provide names of anyone connected to them academically
or personally
• Conflicts of interests (COI) tarnish researcher’s academic reputation irreparably
• Even appearance COI can harm not only researcher, but also public perception of the scholarly
community
• Some institutions and funding agencies have formal review to discuss existing or potential COI
• Researcher may have to disclose personal and financial information
• Sometimes study must be dropped if such issue is found, and other ways to carry out the
research must be sough
CONFLICT OF COMMITMENT
• More applicable to student researchers
• May find it difficult to divide their time and energy between study, research, personal work, and
leisure
• As a solution to this, institutions may mandate a certain number of hours to dedicate to
research in a week
CONFLICT OF VALUES
• More sensitive and personal in nature
• Occurs when the researcher’s underlying convictions, principles, and beliefs clash with their
research
• E.g. so-called scientific study of ‘eugenics’ by Nazi scientists
• sought to prove genetically that certain races of humans were inferior to others.
• Cannot be resolved by formal boards
• Up to researcher to keep open frame of mind during research.
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRB)
• Independent Ethics Committee (IEC), Ethical Review Board (ERB), or Research Ethics Board (REB)
• Committees within research institution that review research proposals involving human subjects
and grant approval
• Must consist of at least five people, of whom
• both men and women are equally represented
• all social strata are equally represented
• at least one person is of the same scientific inclination as the researcher
• at least one person is not of scientific inclination
• at least one person is not affiliated with the institution
• Diverse group in order to ensure fresh, unbiased perspectives
REFERENCES
1. A Guide to Research Ethics [PDF]. (2003). University of Minnesota.
2. Adams, L. A., & Callahan, T. (2014, September 2). Research Ethics. Retrieved September 9,
2017, from https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/resrch.html
3. An Introduction to Ethics Issues and Principles in Research Involving Human and Animal
Participants [PDF]. (2014, May). Canterbury Christ Church University.
4. Forister, J. G., & Blessing, J. D. (2016). Introduction to research and medical literature for health
professionals. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
5. Meline, T. (2010). A Research Primer for Communication Sciences and Disorders. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
6. On being a scientist: a guide to responsible conduct in research. (2009). Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press.
7. Resnik, D. B. (2015, December 1). What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important? Retrieved
September 09, 2017, from
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
8. Resources for Research Ethics Education. (n.d.). Retrieved September 09, 2017, from
http://research-ethics.net/introduction/what/
9. “Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law
No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.
10. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research
Involving Human Subjects. (2001). Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79(4), 373-374.
Retrieved September 9, 2017
THANK YOU!
