WEEK 11) Research Integrity & Ethics

Question 1

Macquarie University seeks to maintain a strong research culture which incorporates:

Answer 1

• honesty and integrity
• respect for human research participants, animals and
the environment
• good stewardship of public resources used to conduct
research e.g. if you get a grand/funding to do study,
researcher shouldn’t waste that money
• appropriate acknowledgment of the role of others in
research
• responsible communication of research results.

Main things: ethical treatment of research participants
AND ethical behaviour of the researcher (all authors on there, record results).

Question 2

Describe the Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis.

Answer 2

Who: The Public Health Service conducted study. So medical PROFESSIONALS!

What: Black men with a sexually transmitted disease—syphilis—not given treatment even after the disease became treatable in the 1940s. And also told that they would be given free medical treatment in the study (as a lure to get participants). Never actually treated, men dying, passing it on to wives and kids.

Question 3

Surely with the Tuskegee study people were just not aware about ethics back then in the 1930s?

Answer 3

WRONG! ppl were aware of research ethics a while back in 1813 (19th C).

e.g. Claude Bernard
“The principle of medical and surgical
morality consists in never performing on man an experiment which might be harmful to him to any extent, even though the result might be highly advantageous to science.”

Question 4

What became of the Tuskegee study?

Answer 4

Nothing. No rules or regulations. No list of ethical principles yet. Despite discussion of ethics in medical science, overall:

• researcher still left to own DISCRETION to decide how they should treat their participants.
• it was merely ASSUMED that researchers would be ethical and protect their participants from harm.

Question 5

What were the Nuremberg trials in 1946 about?

Answer 5

• German physicians were tried for conducting unethical experiments during the war

e. g. break bones and analyse capacity for regrowth
e. g. put ppl into freezing water to see how long it takes for them to die.

Question 6

What was to come of the Nuremberg trials in 1946?

Answer 6

judges adopted 10 points—The Nuremberg Code

Question 7

What was the effect of the Nuremberg code?

e. g. legality
e. g. applicable
e. g. modifications?

Answer 7

The Nuremberg code was not legally binding, so researchers did not have to abide by it.

Ethics decisions were left to the discretion of the researcher

Many scientists didn’t think the Nuremberg code was applicable beyond the context of inhumane Nazi experiments—so it didn’t apply to them.

There were attempts to modify the strict language of the Nuremberg code in subsequent documents, so that informed consent would not be required in all cases (Jones et al. , 2016).

Question 8

What did the The Nuremberg Code become/ turn into eventually?

Answer 8

the Helsinki Declaration

Question 9

What was different about the helsinki declaration?

Answer 9

1) was more relevant to ethical standards in clinical research than the Nuremberg code.
2) recommended to pass research through ethics committee.

Question 10

Was the Helsinki Declaration legally binding?

Answer 10

No it was still only recommended to pass your research by with the committee.

Question 11

What was the Brooklyn Study about in biomedical maltreatment?

Answer 11

In 1963 when 22 geriatric hospital patients were injected with live liver cancer cells.

Dr Southam avoided “the phobia and ignorance that surrounds the word cancer” by telling patients “they were getting human cells growing in test tubes.”

Question 12

What was imp about the Brooklyn study?

Answer 12

It was so scandalous that it started to really spark discussion for it to be the law to pass things by ethic committee.

Question 13

What was imp about the Brooklyn study?

Answer 13

It was so scandalous that it started to really spark discussion for it to be the law to pass things by ethic committee.

Question 14

What were the Milgrim experiments about in 1963?

Answer 14

• Participants believed they were administering extreme shocks
• caused them Psychological distress
• used a lot of Deception, wasnt really informed consent?

Question 15

Who was Henry Beecher?

Answer 15

An ethics researcher who reviewed many of studies and pointed out how unethical everyone was still, and that few ppl were following the principles of Nuremberg and Helsinki.

Question 16

What was to come from Henry Beecher’s review?

Answer 16

Nothing. HE STILL didnt call for legal regulation of researchers. still argued that the researcher have discretion in applying the principles.

Question 17

When was the first legal ethics committee made?

Answer 17

1974 in US. Their ethics committee name = National Research Act. No long relied on researcher’s discretion.

Question 18

What is the “National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research”?

Answer 18

What: it’s a book. a series of Guidelines made in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992.

Question 19

Who is the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research for?

Answer 19

• researchers conducting research with human participants
• HREC members reviewing that
research
• those involved in research governance
• potential research participants (to confirm or check researcher is treating them right).

Question 20

The document National statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research has five main sections:

Answer 20

1. Values and principles of ethical conduct
2. Themes in research ethics (risk and benefit, consent)
3. Ethical considerations specific to research methods or fields
4. Ethical considerations specific to participants (e.g. some groups are more vulnerable than others e.g. kids or geriatrics).
5. Processes of research governance and ethical review

Question 21

What is the “Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research”?

Answer 21

Guides institutions and researchers in developing responsible research practices and policies

Question 22

What is different about the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research compared to the National statement book?

Answer 22

Compliance with the Aust code is a prerequisite for receiving Government research funding.

Also this one talks about what to do if there is research misconduct.

Question 23

What are the steps if theres been a complaint that a research hasnt acted responsibly?

Answer 23

• a discreet investigation
• a formal inquiry
• the imposition of a sanction or penalty
• actions to remedy the situation
• advice to expert groups and public statements as appropriate

Question 24

What are the three cases for when a complaint or allegation relates to research misconduct under the Australian Code?

Answer 24

1) an alleged breach of this Code
2) intent and deliberation, recklessness or gross and persistent negligence
3) serious consequences, such as false information on the public record, or adverse effects on participants, animals or environment

Question 25

What are some examples that are considered misconduct under the Australian code?

Answer 25

fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting the results of research, and failure to declare/manage a serious conflict of interest.

Also, avoidable failure to follow research proposals as approved by a research ethics committee.

Question 26

So what are the two main things the National Statement and the Code cover together?

Answer 26

1. ethical treatment of research participants

2. ethical behaviour in representing the outcomes of research

Question 27

What was Martinson et al’s study in 2005?

Answer 27

The first modern study to provide empirical evidence from a large and representative sample of scientists documenting a broad range of questionable behaviours.

Surveyed early- and mid-career scientists (N= 3247), in the US and asked them to report their own behaviours.
Note that the self-reported estimates given by the participants were likely to have been conservative.

Question 28

What did Martinson et al’s study in 2005 find?

Career stage?
First 6 behaviours?
How many engaged in at least one of the top ten behaviours?

Answer 28

• Early career ppl tend to engage in misconduct much less than mid career researchers. e.g mid career know what they can get away with.
• Most research misbehaviour was not the serious misconduct ones like fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism— in fact first 6 serious behaviour are only< 2%
• But 33% reported engaging in at least one of the top 10 behaviours over the last three years

Question 29

What did Martinson et al conclude about his study in 2005?

Answer 29

‘To protect the integrity of science, we must look beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, to a wider range of questionable research practices’

Question 30

What kind of environmental pressures might contribute to this misconduct rather than ‘bad apples’?

Answer 30

• Highly competitive and high stakes environment for funding, publication, jobs, and promotion.
• These conditions can inadvertently provide an incentive for cutting corners e.g. fabricate results.

Question 31

What are the safeguards against fraud/misconduct in research?

Answer 31

• replication
• peer review of research
• the consequences of being found guilty of fraud (career destroying).

But q is are these good enough?

Question 32

Who was Diederik Stapel? What did he do?

hint staple this shit together and it would look legit i reckon

Answer 32

Dutch social psychologist (Tilburg University) and Dean of the Social and Behavioural Sciences Faculty

What: Suspended for fabricating and manipulating data for his research publications in 2011. misconduct affected at least 55 publications. “Did” studies on racism and how close ppl would sit to a black guy if environment was dirty. Didnt do any of these studies.

• In June 2013 he agreed, in a settlement with the prosecutor, to perform 120 hours of community service and to lose the right to some benefits associated with his former job.