Ethical Considerations in
Research
PED 451 – Research in Health and
Exercise Science
Ethical Question: Why Did the
Chicken Cross the Road?
• Plato: For the greater good.
• Shakespeare: To cross or not to cross, that is the
question.
• Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or
the road crossed the chicken depends on your
frame of reference.
• Darwin: It was the logical next step after coming
down from the trees.
• Graduate student: Was that regular or extra-crispy?
Definition of Scientific
Misconduct
Scientific misconduct is fabrication,
falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
performing, or reviewing research, or in
reporting research results.
Federal Resistor October 14, 1999
The Basics of Ethics in
Research
Dishonest, fraudulent, or unethical researchers can
circumvent the scientific method
Notable examples:
1.
-
Nazi Germany Experimentation
Charges brought against 23 German physicians in the
Nuremberg War Crime Trials for their medical
experiments – included:
1.
2.
3.
-
Freezing Experiments
Malaria Experiments
High-Altitude Experiments
Led to the development of
Nuremberg Code
The Basics of
Ethics in Research
2.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study
Was investigation of long-term effects of untreated
syphilis on AA males in Macon County,AL
Decision was made to do long-term prospective study
and follow long-term effects until death
Participants were never told real nature of study –
were not afforded informed consent
Treatment for syphilis was withheld (even after
discovery of penicillin to treat syphilis) – study
continued for 40 yrs.
Regulation of Research and
Protection of Research Participants:
Proponents of situational ethics argue that no general
rules can be applied to all situations – each action is
unique
Belmont report – serves as a fundamental document for
current federal regulations for protection of human
subjects – 3 principle:
1.
2.
3.
Respect for Persons
Beneficence
Justice
Code requires that protocols involving human subjects be
reviewed by an IRB.
Complete Belmont report:
http://www.ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm
Informed Consent
Inherent to this principle are 4 elements:
1. Subjects are made fully aware of the nature and purpose of
the research project
2. Consent is voluntarily given
3. The person involved has the legal capacity to give
consent
4. The responsibility for obtaining consent rests with the
researcher
* Sometimes, because of the Hawthorne Effect, it may be necessary
to use some deception in telling subjects about the study.
Privacy and Confidentiality
Privacy refers to capacity of individuals to control when and
what conditions others have access to their behaviors,
beliefs, and values.
Confidentiality refers to linking information to a person’s
identity
CAN YOU THINK OF EXAMPLES WHERE CONFIDENTIALITY
WOULD BE IMPOTANT?
Informed consent should indicate how researcher will
protect confidentiality of participants
Some procedures that can ensure confidentiality:
Obtaining anonymous information
Code data so that identifying info is eliminated
Substitute other names
Do not release or report individual data
Limit access that could reveal individual identity
Report data only in group form
Used computerized methods for encrypting data
Seven Areas
of Scientific Dishonesty
1. Plagiarism—using the ideas, writings, and
drawings of others as your own
2. Fabrication and falsification—making up
or altering data
3. Nonpublication of data , also called “cooking data”
4. Faulty data-gathering procedures
5. Poor data storage and retention
(continued)
Seven Areas
of Scientific Dishonesty
6. Misleading authorship—who should be an author?
- Technicians do not necessarily become
joint authors.
- Authorship should involve only those who
contribute directly.
- Discuss authorship before the project!
(continued)
1. Plagiarism
Means using ideas, writings, or drawings of others as your own.
Happens with student work as well – with advent of Internet, the
availability of research is greater – is often more tempting
Can occur unintentionally with students and researchers if they are
careless or nonsystematic about their “pre-writing” and revision to a
paper/manuscript
Many schools are accessing plagiarism software –
Anti-Plagiarism V.1.2
Common practice is to circulate drafts of papers among scholars
who are know to be working in a specific area – give credit where
credit is due.
2. Fabrication and Falsification
Occasionally, scientists will be caught “making up” research –
Technical term is called “Cooking the data”
“I only need a few more subjects, but I am running out of time.”
Falsification can also occur with cited literature –
Be careful how you are interpreting what an author says – “If it ain’t
there, don’t make it up out of thin air”.
Is another reason you should rely primarily on primary, original
sources.
3. Nonpublication of
Data
This refers to “not including” data because they don’t support the
hypothesis
Sometimes in the data, there are extreme scores or “outliers” - and
these outliers are “trimmed” from the data set
They can result in nonsiginificant findings but should “automatically”
be cut.
Nonsiginificant results often give just as much important information
as do significant results.
4. Faulty Data Gathering
Aspects that students should be aware of:
1.
Continuing with data collection from participants who are not meeting the
requirement of the research
EXAMPLES?
Subject comes in with a hangover and you use that data anyway
2.
Malfunctioning equipment
3.
Inappropriate treatment of subjects
4.
Recording data incorrectly
Poor data storage
Misleading authorship
4.
Poor Data Storage –
Rule of thumb is to keep data for 3 years
All original data should be kept if there is a question
5.
Misleading Authorship –
Order of authorship is based on author’s contributions
1st author usually developed the idea for the research
This needs to be decided BEFORE the research is started.
Two rules help to define authorship:
1.
Technicians are not necessarily authors
Data collectors are not necessarily included in the authorship
2.
Authorship SHOULD include only those who directly contribute
Ethical Issues
Regarding Copyright
• What is “fair use” of materials?
- Purpose: Commercial or educational?
- Nature: Is copying expected?
- Amount: How much is copied?
- Effect: What is the influence on the market?
• For teaching: Articles, chapters, overheads, slides,
PowerPoint presentations
• For research: Figures and tables, standardized tests,
questionnaires, previously published scholarly work
• If you are unsure, ask permission!
Model for Considering Scientific
Misconduct
• Scientific misconduct  Sanctions
• Scientific mistakes  Remedial activities
• Causes of scientific misconduct
-
Pressure to publish
Need to complete graduate work
Desire to continue funding
Desire for academic rewards
Working With Faculty
• Faculty advisors or mentors should treat graduate
students as colleagues.
• Selecting an advisor or mentor:
- Read what she or he has written.
- Talk to other students.
• Changing your advisor or mentor
Elements of Informed Consent:
In considering these elements, reflect back to:
Nazi Experiments
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A fair explanation of the procedures to be followed,
including identification of those that are experimental
A description of discomforts and risks
A description of possible benefits
A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures that
would be advantageous to the subject
An instruction that the subject is free to withdraw or leave
at any time
Example: Plagiarism
In preparing her thesis introduction, Graduate
Assistant Christina periodically takes multiple
sentences verbatim from some of her sources (her
attitude is, “I couldn’t have written it better myself”).
• Is she wrong to do this?
• If she provides a reference to her sources at the end
of the paragraph, is she still wrong?
Fabrication or Falsification
of Data
Professor Wade has strength-training data on 20
elderly participants. As he was madly processing his
data to meet the ACSM abstract deadline, he realized
that the sample did not show a significant increase in
strength. Examining his data more closely revealed
that 15 participants did improve, but 5 did not. He
decided that they must not have adhered to the training,
so he dropped them and now has a significant increase
in strength.
(continued)
Fabrication or Falsification
of Data
• Has Professor Wade acted ethically?
• How long should you keep your data for others
to see?
• Are you obligated to provide your data on request?
Authorship
Professor Conan Barbarian is an icon in the field of
gerontology. He is the director of the Institute of
Gerontological Research at Jellystone University, a
highly funded research lab with lots of graduate
students. Professor Barbarian requires that he be
listed as an author on all manuscripts based on
research completed in his lab.
• Is Professor Barbarian justified in his demand, or is
this an example of “ego gone wild?”
Changing Your Major Professor
Graduate Assistant (GA) Lee is interested in the
mechanical behavior of muscle and was accepted at
CU to study with Professor Silverman, an expert in
this area. After a year in the program, the chemistry
between GA Lee and Professor Silverman is not so
great. Lee also notes that a GA friend is working with
Professor Moran, an expert on muscle energetics,
and getting some travel money. Lee wants to switch
to Professor Moran but keep working on muscle
mechanics.
(continued)
Changing Your Major Professor
• Should GA Lee propose a mentor change?
• If so, how should he go about this?
• What are GA Lee’s obligations to Professor
Silverman?