RESEARCH ETHICS

RESEARCH ETHICS SUMMARY

Research ethics primarily concerns prohibitions against fraud and for the protection of human subjects. The prohibition against fraud serves to assure the validity and reliability of scientific knowledge. Ethical standards for the protection of human subjects are designed to minimize harm to research subjects and assure that risky procedures are used only if there is significant benefit and with the full knowledge and consent of the research subjects.

PROHIBITION AGAINST FRAUD

It may seem obvious that researchers should not commit fraud. There is no basis for trusting scientific knowledge if it is all fraudulent. In fact, blatant fraud, where a person simply lies about doing research and makes up the findings, is quite rare in professional publications of science. There are two types of fraud, however, that are not totally uncommon: fudging the data and plagiarism.

Data Fudging

The phrase “fudging the data” implies to some a minor modification of findings to make the results more clear. What such persons don’t want to accept, however, is that sometimes their findings don’t have any clear result. Maybe the findings don’t answer the research question one would like. Maybe they don’t test (and support) the hypothesis that one has. You can’t modify data or ignore contradictory results to support a given position. Once this is done, the user has no basis for expecting any other statements presented are reliable or valid. It destroys the trust necessary for accepting scientific findings.

Data fudging is often detected with other researchers try to replicate the results of a study. It the results do not replicate, questions are raised about the earlier study. If the earlier study received public attention, there may even be an investigation to verify whether the original results were fudged or not. Researchers who fudge their data and who are caught are usually fired from their jobs, barred from receiving research funding, and may even be publicly castigated in the press and in professional publications. It is better to acknowledge that the results are ambiguous or contradictory than to be caught fudging your data.

Plagiarism

The term “plagiarism” congers up an image of a person copying the work of another and putting his or her name on it. Within science, this is increasingly hard to do. Once findings have been published, it is increasingly easy to retrieve those findings and determined who published the results first. Where there is collaboration between researchers, however, there may be times where one person writes up some results that others use in their own publications without citing the original person. This is one type of plagiarism. If a researcher presents a specific finding or fact that was produced by another, then credit needs to be given to the source of the information. All specific facts borrowed from other sources need source citations so the reader that go to the source document and judge for him or her self the credibility of the findings.

Another type of plagiarism occurs when a researcher uses phrases or sentences of another researcher without citing the other source. All quoted phrases and sentences need a source citation. You cannot quote something without giving the source. The reader must be able to go to the source of the quotation and judge how accurate, fair, and appropriate the quotation is. This also applies to paraphrasing a quotation. A rewording of a quotation may remove the need to put it in quotations. It does not remove the need to cite the source of that statement or phrase. If you paraphrase a quotation, you still need to cite the source of the paraphrase.

Plagiarism undermines the credibility of research findings because plagiarized findings are not subject to examination by the reader. Perhaps the source document was poorly done research. Perhaps it was only a speculative piece without any empirical data at all. The reader doesn’t know if the source is not cited.

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

There are two principle elements in protecting human subjects: informed consent and minimization of harm. Adequate information and free consent are essential to informed consent. Harming the subjects is unethical, illegal, and will usually produce unusable findings.

Informed Consent

Researchers have an obligation to inform subjects of the purposes of their study, the risks that may result from it, what will be done to minimize those risks, and potential benefits that may result from participation. They must also assure that a subject who consents to be in the study has the capacity to evaluate the risks and benefits and that he or she is free to accept or reject participation. A researcher also will usually tell a subject that individual information will be kept confidential and not be released without the subject’s permission.

Explaining the Purposes. In general, a researcher must explain to a subject the purposes of the study and what the subject will have to do to participate in the study. The amount of explanation depends on the degree of involvement of the subject in the study. A person who sits in a baseball stadium watching a game does not need an explanation that some researcher in the stands is observing crowd behavior. Such a person has no expectation of privacy and takes no action other than their normal, public behavior (such as, cheering or clapping her or his hands, or booing) in participating in the study. Generally, if people are doing public activities, in the public, and have no expectation of privacy, they informed consent is not necessary. On the other hand, if a person has to actively do something to participate (such as, answer questions, type in responses on a computer, allow the researcher in to areas of their life that normally would be private), then the researcher must explain the study and go through a consent process of some kind.

Risks and Benefits. All research has risks and benefits. Sometimes the risks are low and the benefits high; other times, not. Research that explains the risks and benefits allows the subjects to weigh the pros and cons of participation. They will not be deceived about what is likely to happen. If a person feels they have been deceived by a researcher, they may react in ways that destroys the validity of the research itself. Behavior may be altered. Misinformation may be provided. The results may be distorted in one way or another.

One must explain the risks and benefits to the subject and to others. These risks and benefits may be material, psychological, or social. Material risks involve physical harm or illness to people. Psychological risks involve distress or psychological trauma. Social risks entail ostracism that people may experience if private information about them becomes public knowledge.

The assessment of risks and benefits includes the risk that an individual subject’s information may become known to another not authorized to have that information. To reduce this risk, researchers are required, with a few exceptions, to maintain confidentiality of research information. A researcher is not supposed to reveal information that would allow another to identify a research subject. All federally funded research is required (in the U.S. Federal Code) to adhere to confidentiality. Violating confidentiality of federally funded research is a violation of federal law.

Free Consent. When a person is adequately informed about a study, has the capacity to weigh the pros and cons of participation, and is not coerced or unduly induced to participate, they give free consent. The participants must also be allowed to withdraw consent. If someone wants to drop out of a study, he or she must be allowed to do so without any harm or loss of benefit.

They must not be forced to participate. They must not believe they will lose any benefit if they fail to participate nor must they be offered such a great benefit that they are hard pressed to refuse. Offering too great a benefit is “undue inducement.” In the past, some research studies of prisoners have offered such great inducements, such as reduced time served, that inmates occasionally agreed to participate that resulted is significant medical harm to the subjects.

Free consent requires the subject is able to weigh the pros and cons of participation. They must have the mental capacity to understand and evaluate the issues in participating. Those whose cognitive faculties are impaired or underdeveloped cannot fully give free consent. Children, the mentally ill, and those suffering dementia usually fall in this category. There is usually a need for a parent, a guardian, or a designated authority to make such judgments for the subject. Even so, refusal by such an impaired person should still be given weight in deciding whether there was free consent to participate.

Indicating Consent. In most circumstances, subjects need to agree to participate in a study before consent can be said to be given. The agreement may be a form that is signed by a participant. Consent may be verbal. In some cases, returning an anonymous questionnaire in the mail may be taken as consent to participate. The general principal is: the more intrusive the study, the more consent must be clearly documented. Anonymous questionnaires are generally fairly unobtrusive and have few risks to the subject. It should be kept in mind, however, that the absence of rejecting consent is not necessarily the same thing as giving consent. An experimental design in which some subjects are given placebos and others an intervention can be very obtrusive and usually requires documenting consent with a signed form. The particular requirements for obtaining consent may require discussions with an organizations Institutional Review Board.

Minimization of Harm

Harm is minimized when a researcher takes steps to lower the risks of the study. It is also lowered by trying to repair or ameliorate damage that results. Action must be taken in advance of a study to reduce the risks. This includes planning in advance how confidentiality of the data will be maintained. Plans must be made to repair damage if it does occur.

The researcher must be prepared to reduce physical, psychological, or social harm that might result from the study. Reduction of physical harm may require offering free medical treatment to the subject. Psychological harm may require psychiatric or psychological services. Social harm requires repairing one’s reputation in a community. Such interventions do not always succeed and this is part of the risks of the study.