This document discusses various ethical issues related to research involving human subjects. It addresses the need for informed consent, minimizing risks and assessing participant understanding. Key points covered include obtaining consent, withdrawal procedures, deception/concealment, assessing risks, and maintaining participant confidentiality and autonomy. Overall, the document emphasizes that research ethics are important to consider for any study involving human participants.

1. Research Ethics
Summary
1

2. But what has
ethics got to do
with research?
Is “pure” research
above ethics and
morality?
Is ethics and morality
to do with technology
and politics (the
appliance of research)
not research itself?
2

3. The chain of discovery
I n d u s t r y i n S O C I E T Y - P O L I T I C S
S o l v i n g p r o b l e m s
T e c h n o l o g y a s I N S T R U M E N T - E C O N O M I C S
A p p l i c a t i o n
K n o w l e d g e i n A R C H I V E - H I S T O R Y
P u b l i c a t i o n
D i s c o v e r y b y M E T H O D - P H I L O S O P H Y
R e s e a r c h
S c i e n t i s t w i t h V O C A T I O N - P S Y C H O L O G Y
3

4. The Impact of Research on Values
and Values on Research
• Ethical
considerations are to
the fore with the
development of new
technologies and
new social systems
• Society is inherently
conservative and
seeks to set the
limits of research
activity
I’m damned if they are going
to make me redundant
4

5. The scope of research ethics
• Ethical considerations
cover all aspect of
research but they are
fore-grounded when
the subject of the
research are humans
or animals
5

6. • Research involving human
subjects in the Medical,
Social and Behavioral
Sciences poses complex
ethical issues.
• It requires careful thought
and consideration on the
part of both researchers
and research participants.
• Prospective participants
must be given adequate
information on both the
possible risks and the
potential benefits of their
involvement to allow them
to make informed decisions
It has its
disadvantages
But it
pays well
6

7. Ethical Issues
• Justification for the
research
• Access to
participants/Privacy
• Informed consent
• Potential harm
7

8. • With research involving
human subjects the risks
and costs must be
balanced against the
potential benefits
• Trivial or repetitive
research is may be
unethical where the
subjects are at risk
After years of experimentation the
scientist proved that children
become addicted to nicotine
8

9. Autonomy
• The ethical principle of
autonomy means that
each person should be
given the respect, time,
and opportunity
necessary to make his or
her own decisions.
• Prospective participants
must be given the
information they will need
to decide to enter a study
or not to participate.
• There should not be
pressure to participate. 9

10. The process of obtaining consent
1. Identify participant population
2. Produce information sheet and consent document
3. Obtain permission from school’s ethics committee
4. Present research information to participant and
discuss its contents – indicating that withdrawal at
any time is possible
5. Answer participants questions
6. Give a copy of the consent document
7. Allow the participant time to consider
8. Meet participant and discuss documents, to answer
any more questions and assess participants
understanding
9. Obtain appropriate signed consent
10. Start research
10

11. The participants
• The participants may not
have the experience or
educational background in
order to fully understand the
implications of the research
• They may be swayed
because of their respect of
and trust in the researcher
who stands as an authority
figure
• If they are being paid for their
participation they may be
swayed by economic
considerations from a free
judgement of the risks 11

12. Peer pressure
• The participants
may be subject to
social pressure of
their peer group
• This is particularly
prevalent in
research groups
12

13. Assessing Participant Understanding
An important part of the process is for
the researcher to ensure that the
prospective participants
understands the research, their
role in it, and any risks they may be
taking.
During discussion the use of open-
ended and nondirective questions
(i.e. those that begin with words
such as "what," "where," "how
often," "when," and "please
describe.“) is most effective at
doing this .
13

14. A few of the questions you may
want to ask are:
• Describe in your own words the purpose of the study.
• What more would you like to know?
• Would you please explain to me what you think we're
going to ask you to do?
• What are your concerns?
The idea is not to quiz the participant but to encourage an
open exchange of information and encourage them to
ask questions.
14

15. Contact Information
Give the names of people who can
answer questions about the
research; include the principal
investigator.
If the researcher is a student, include
the names and phone numbers of
the principal investigator and,
where applicable, the chair of the
school ethical committee for
questions.
Furnish the contact name of a
neutral third party who can explain
the rights of research participants
if the participant has any
questions.
15

16. Withdrawal
• Always stress the fact that
participation is voluntary and that
the participant can withdraw at any
time
• State that refusing to participate will
involve no penalty or decrease in
benefits to which the participant is
otherwise entitled.
• Emphasize that the individual may
discontinue participation at any time
without penalty or loss of benefits.
• If there are limitations or risks
involved in withdrawal, such as a
danger to the participant's well
being, these must also be clearly
explained.
16

17. Ethical problems may arise
The requirements of
effective research
sometimes conflict with
the simple fulfillment of
the obligation to obtain
informed consent.
For example
• in psychological research
information and fore-
knowledge may bias the
results
17

18. Reasons for limiting information
• The most common reason for
limiting information is that valid
data could not be obtained if the
participants were fully informed
about the purposes and
procedures of the research.
• Methodological requirements of
the research may demand that
the participants remain unaware
of the specific hypotheses under
investigation.
• In other situations, incomplete
information or misinformation
may have to be provided to elicit
the behavior of a naive individual
or to create psychological reality
under conditions that permit valid
inference. 18

19. Deception or concealment
Fully informed consent cannot be obtained in
some kinds of research without the
possibility that the results may be biased
In those circumstances where a
methodological requirement may
necessitates the use of concealment or
deception, the researcher has a special
responsibility
1. to determine whether the use of such
techniques is justified by the study's
prospective scientific, educational, or
applied value
2. whether alternative procedures are
available that do not use concealment or
deception
3. that the participants are provided with
sufficient explanation as soon as possible.
These issues should be explored before
undertaking the research with colleagues,
supervisor(s) and the school/departmental
ethics committee.
19

20. Risk assessment
Research is by nature
uncertain.
• The researcher may not be
fully aware of the possible
hazards involved in the
proposed research.
• For example in the early
stages of the development
of new drugs their long term
effects may not be known.
• In these circumstances the
participant may not be fully
informed of potential risks. 20

21. The perception of risk is central to informed
consent
Perceived through investigation
e.g. in science by experiment and observation
Virtual risk
that is not known or
cannot be known,
or where there are
different opinions
Perceived directly by
the participant’s own
senses or experience
e.g. such as driving a car
A participant in research will probably not have the experience to
perceive the risk directly and may be confused by mixed messages
of virtual risk and so rely on the researcher’s understanding of risk
RISK
21

22. Consent
Form
• Might take
the following
form
I have read the Information Sheet and have had the
details of the study explained to me. My questions
have been answered to my satisfaction, and I may ask
further questions at any time.
I understand I have the right to withdraw from the
study at any time and decline to answer any particular
questions.
I agree to provide information to the researcher(s) on
the understanding that my name will not be used
without my permission.
I agree/do not agree to the interview being recorded
electronically.
I understand that I have the right to ask for the tape to
be turned off at any time during the interview
I agree to participate in this study under the conditions
set out in the information sheet
Signature – Name - Date
22

23. Research design
Most research is sponsored
It is ethical behaviour for a
researcher
• to use resources efficiently
and effectively
• to work hard
• to ensure the well-being of
all colleagues and
participants
23

24. Minimising the risks
Maximising the potential for valuable results
It is standard practise in research to carry out
a preliminary small-scale project in order to
enable
• more effective assessment of risks
• more efficient design of the main project
24

25. In fact two types of error can arise
when considering whether or not to
reject the null hypothesis
Condition of Null Hypothesis (innocent)
TRUE
(really innocent)
FALSE
(actually guilty)
Fail to reject
Ho
Correct action
(innocent rightly
acquitted)
Type II error
(guilty goes free)
Possible action
Reject
Ho
Type I error
(innocent convicted)
Correct action
(guilty rightly
convicted)
25

26. Failure of the research design
• A research design that has a high chance
of a Type II error is unethical because it
wastes resources
• Accepting the null hypothesis when it is
in fact false can be an important
consideration.
• If you fail to reject Ho is that genuinely
because Ho is correct?
• Or is the power of the test inadequate?
26

27. The Mertonian norms
• Communalism
• Universalism
• Disinterestedness
• Originality
• Scepticism
27

28. The ethical matrix
• Provides a means of examining the ethical positions of all interest
groups – ensuring equality of treatment (justice/fairness).
• It helps to identify where one stronger principle might overcome a
weaker one or where a compromise should be sought
• Separates well-being, autonomy and fairness
Respect for: Well-being Autonomy Fairness
Interest group 1 Best outcome Best outcome Best outcome
Interest group 2 Best outcome Best outcome Best outcome
Interest group 3 Best outcome Best outcome Best outcome
Interest group 4 Best outcome Best outcome Best outcome
28

29. Communalism
One of the Mertonian principles of
science is communalism that
the results of research are public
knowledge, freely available to all
Research to provide public
knowledge, freely available to all
But what about
• secret government research?
• secret commercial research?
Who owns the results - patents ?
The Diggers believed that
the land belonged to
everyone 29

30. Who owns the information?
However the participants in research
have a right to privacy
Alternatively much research is
private, owned by the funder of the
research either the government or
a commercial concern
The conflict between privacy,
confidentiality and the public
access to knowledge creates an
ethical arena
“Who owns the information?”
30

31. Secrecy
31

32. Whistle-blowing
• Researchers are in a privileged
position
• They may come across
information about wrong-doing or
danger to the public
• The reporting of this information
may go against any confidentiality
agreement
• The reporting of such information
is likely to damage their career
• The Public Disclosure Act 1998
protects certain classes of
workers from the consequences
of whistle-blowing
32

33. Confidentiality
• Confidentiality of
electronically stored
participant information.
• Appropriate selection and
use of tools for analysis
of the primary data
• Who has access to the
data
• Data protection act 33

34. Universalism
There are no privileged
sources of scientific
knowledge
• Race, sex, politics ?
• Specialism ?
• Authority ?
But certain classes and
ethnic groups are
under-represented in
research.
34

35. Disinteredness
Science is done for its own
sake
How impersonal is research
in practice ?
Research is competitive, not
just in the search for
funding but also for
status.
• High achieving
researchers tend to be
highly ambitious?
• Personal feuds are rife in
academia ? For example
in disputes over priority ?
35

36. The same academic
institutions that
are responsible
for oversight of
scientific integrity
and human
subjects
protection are
entering financial
relationships with
the industries
whose products
which might
directly impinge
on these.
36

37. Knowledge for its own sake
• A belief that scientific
knowledge is
politically and
ethically neutral is
challenged by the
misuse of scientific
knowledge
37

38. Originality
Science is the discovery of
the unknown
• Plagiarism ?
• Publication of the same
results in multiple
journals ?
• Routine “stamp-
collecting” surveys ?
38

39. Sceptical
• Is sceptical of given
opinions
• Challenges accepted
views
39

40. Research is social activity
• Research is not just a
method and a system of
organised knowledge
• It is a social activity
carried out by groups of
competing/co-
operating/communicating
scientists
40

41. Three dimensions of academic research
community
person knowledge
‘meeting’
‘sincerity’ ‘theory’
‘publication’
‘controversy’‘authority’
‘experiment’
41

42. The participation of colleagues
• A key consideration concerns
the status/rank/class of not just
subjects but all participants
including colleagues
• This will influence the ethical
relationship/responsibility of the
researcher. Not all people are
equal.
• Colleagues may vary from
superiors such as project
leaders, “equals” but with
varying degrees of experiences
and status, to technicians and
support staff. There is a special
responsibility to colleagues with
less experience or of a lower
rank who may find it more
difficult to refuse to participate.
42

43. Ethical relationships with
supervisors
• The relationship between the
student and the supervisor is
unequal and hierarchical.
• the supervisor plays many
roles as "adviser", "promoter",
"boss", "teacher", "friend",
"principal investigator” etc.
• This multiplicity of roles may
lead to conflict
• the relationship may be or
may seem to be co-ercive
abusive
• A student must feel free to
make their own decisions
43

44. Ethical supervision
• Non-coercive
• Nurtures the student’s
confidence and skills
• Permissive
• Does not use the student just
as a technician or assistant
but allows the student to
develop the project in new
ways
• Not jealous of the student’s
success but allows the student
to take ownership of their
project and get the credit for it
44

45. Ethical relationships with
colleagues
• Effective and
ethical
relationships with
colleagues will aid
a student to make
more rapid
progress on their
project
45

46. PUBLICATIONS
• Are how the world
sees you.
• Determine whether
you get funding for
further research or
not!
• Determine whether
you get promoted or
not!!
• Determine whether
you keep your job or
not!!!
46

47. THE NEGATIVE DATA PROBLEM
47

48. THE NEGATIVE DATA PROBLEM
• Can negative results be
important?
• Are they publishable?
• Would journals full of negative
results sell?
• If they are not published are
they doomed to be repeated
wastefully?
• How can positive results be
validated without knowing
about negative ones?
48

49. Two types of authorship problem
• Gift Authorship
– Inclusion of authors who did not
contribute significantly to the
study – this might include a PhD
supervisor!
• Hierarchy (Expectation / favour)
• Colleagues ( Increase
publications)
• Ghost Authorship
– Absence of Authors
• Professional writers ( Should be
acknowledged)
• Hierarchical / political / personal
reasons
49

50. When to publish?
There is intense pressure
to publish early and
often
• For career progression
• For getting new grants
• For getting tenure
• For establishing
priority/primacy in an
area of research
50

51. Disputes over priority
• Robert K. Merton, has analysed
disputes about priority in cases of
near simultaneous discovery –
those ending in dispute
– 92% in the 17th century ended
in dispute.
– 72% in the 18th century,
– 59% by the latter half of the
19th century,
– 33% by the first half of the 20th
century.
• The decline in contested claims
for priority in research discoveries
can be credited to the increasing
acceptance of the publication of
papers in modern academic
journals. 51

52. TACTIC 1
• Maximise number of
publications.
• Waste of resources
and distorts
publication output.
• In U.S.A., U.K.
universities up to
early 1990’s and still
applies in Germany,
India, China.
52

53. How to maximise your publications–
UNETHICALLY!
• SALAMI-SLICING
breaking up work into
large number of small
papers.
• TILING
publishing sequence
of substantially
overlapping papers.
• DOUBLE-
PUBLISHING
publishing same work
twice 53

54. Scratch my back and I’ll scratch
yours
• Peer review is
not always
entirely
independent
• Many areas of
research are
small and
highly
competitive
54

55. Some senior
scientists are
intolerant of criticism
and
dangerous to cross.
55

56. PLAGIARISM
• Plagiarism is dishonesty.
• The research may be excellent
but it wasn’t done by the
author of the paper.
• No point in trying to plagiarise
published work.
• Plagiarism mostly involves
unpublished theses.
• Difficult to detect unless
editor/referee familiar with
unpublished work in subject as
well as published work.
• Sanctions seen as a default
option now.
56

57. Plagiarism
• Comes from the Latin word meaning “to
kidnap”
• Examples of plagiarism:
– Copying someone else’s words without proper
citation
– Stealing someone else’s ideas
– Stealing someone else’s intellectual property
Bottom Line: Cite sources properly and
minimize quotations in research reports

58. 58

59. An Introduction
to Research
Ethics
59