Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Vamos a Hacerlo Bien Hecho- Conducta Ética y Responsable en la Investigación

4,077 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Spiritual
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Vamos a Hacerlo Bien Hecho- Conducta Ética y Responsable en la Investigación

  1. 1. VAMOS A HACERLO BIEN HECHO-CONDUCTA ÉTICA Y RESPONSABLE EN LA INVESTIGACIÓN 11 DE ENERO DE 2012 MARCEL CASTRO-SITIRICHE, INEL CHRISTOPHER PAPADOPOULOS, INGE AIDSA SANTIAGO-ROMAN, INGE
  2. 2. PRELIMINARIES• Please divide into groups of five persons. Each group should have at least one person proficient in English and not everyone should be in the same field of study.• At various points you will be asked to work in groups. During each activity, appoint someone to • Keep time • Record notes • Give overall directions
  3. 3. WARM UP ETHICS ACTIVITYSource - https://picasaweb.google.com/109139092475651784258/LeDilemmeDuTrolleyEtSesVariantes
  4. 4. ETHIC DILEMMA• TRAIN PROBLEM • Basic Case: 5 workers in rails vs. 1 What would you do and why?
  5. 5. ETHIC DILEMMA• TRAIN PROBLEM • Basic Case: 5 workers in rails vs. 1 • Other Cases: • 5 with terminal disease, 1 healthy What would you do and why?
  6. 6. ETHIC DILEMMASource - https://picasaweb.google.com/109139092475651784258/LeDilemmeDuTrolleyEtSesVariantes
  7. 7. ETHIC DILEMMASource - https://picasaweb.google.com/109139092475651784258/LeDilemmeDuTrolleyEtSesVariantes
  8. 8. ETHIC DILEMMA• TRAIN PROBLEM • Basic Case: 5 workers in rails vs. 1 • Other Cases: • 5 with terminal disease, 1 healthy • 5 vs. 1 that is mom • 5 workers in rails vs. one in the bridge (push or not)
  9. 9. OUTLINE• Overview• Plagiarism and Related Issues• Human Subjects Research• Social Context and Social Responsibility
  10. 10. OVERVIEW OF ETHICAL ISSUES (BASED ON RESPONSES FROM GERESE PROJECT)• Plagiarism (plagio y robo de ideas), Falsification (falsificación) and Fabrication (fabricación)• Scientific Rigor (Rigor científico)• Authorship (autoría)• Record Keeping (documentación)• Misrepresenting Expertise (competencia)• Power Disparity (abuso de poder)• Partiality (amiguismo)• Human Subjects (seres humanos)• Social Context & Responsibility (responsabilidad social) http://cnx.org/content/m19570/latest/
  11. 11. SEPARATE OR INTEGRATED? Academics “Actual” Research (investigación real) “re Professional Development Ethics “tax” & Practice (impuesto de ética) EthicsHow is studying ethics helpful to understandingyour graduate studies and research culture?
  12. 12. OVERVIEW OF ETHICAL ISSUES• Plagiarism (plagio y robo de ideas), Falsification (falsificación) and Fabrication (fabricación)• Scientific Rigor (rigor científico)• Authorship (autoría)• Record Keeping (documentación)• Misrepresenting Expertise (competencia)• Power Disparity (abuso de poder)• Partiality (amiguismo)• Human Subjects (seres humanos)• Social Context & Responsibility (responsabilidad social)
  13. 13. WHAT DEFINES AUTHOR ORDER?
  14. 14. HOW MANY AUTHORS?
  15. 15. 562 AUTHORS …
  16. 16. … FROM 74 INSTITUTIONS!
  17. 17. PLAGIARISM• What is Plagiarism (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) • Steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as ones own. • Use anothers production without crediting the source; literary theft. • Present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.• Cases of Plagiarism (www.plagiarism.org) • Turning in someone elses work as your own. • Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit. • Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks. • Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation. • Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit. • Copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules).• Avoiding Plagiarism (www.plagiarism.org) • Citing sources. • Acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed. • Providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source. • Reading and synthesizing many sources
  18. 18. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE"A class of maize mutants, collectively known as diseaselesion mimics, display discrete disease-like symptoms inthe absence of pathogens. It is intriguing that a majorityof these lesion mimics behave as dominant gain-of-function mutations. The production of lesions is stronglyinfluenced by light, temperature, developmental stateand genetic background. Presently, the biologicalsignificance of this lesion mimicry is not clear, althoughsuggestions have been made that they may representdefects in the plants recognition of, or responseto, pathogens. ... In this paper we argue that this mightbe the case ..." [G.S. Johal, S.H. Hulbert, and S.P. Briggs. 1995.Disease lesion mimics of maize: a model for cell death in plants.”BioEssays 17:685-692]http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/comstock/langure/ethics/php816/modules/plagiarism/biology_new_open.phphttps://mywebspace.wisc.edu/rstreiffer/web/CourseFolders/MHB999S10/03_Exercise%20-%20Life%20Sciences%20Plagiarism%20Key.pdf
  19. 19. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE"A class of maize mutants, collectively known as diseaselesion mimics, display discrete disease-like symptoms inthe absence of pathogens. It is intriguing that a majorityof these lesion mimics behave as dominant gain-of-function mutations. The production of lesions is stronglyinfluenced by light, temperature, developmental stateand genetic background. Presently, the biologicalsignificance of this lesion mimicry is not clear, althoughsuggestions have been made that they may representdefects in the plants recognition of, or responseto, pathogens. ... In this paper we argue that this mightbe the case ..." [G.S. Johal, S.H. Hulbert, and S.P. Briggs.1995. Disease lesion mimics of maize: a model for celldeath in plants.” BioEssays 17:685-692]
  20. 20. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE 1Original Text … You write …Presently, the biological Currently, the biologicalsignificance of this lesion significance of lesionmimicry is not mimicry in plants is notclear, although suggestions known, althoughhave been made that they suggestions have beenmay represent defects in made that they maythe plants recognition of, or represent defects in theresponse to, pathogens. ... plants recognition of, orIn this paper we argue that response to, pathogens.this might be the case ...
  21. 21. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE 1Original Text … You write …Presently, the biological Currently, the biologicalsignificance of this lesion significance of lesionmimicry is not mimicry in plants is notclear, although suggestions known, althoughhave been made that they suggestions have beenmay represent defects in made that they maythe plants recognition of, or represent defects in theresponse to, pathogens. ... plants recognition of, orIn this paper we argue that response to, pathogens.this might be the case ...
  22. 22. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE 2Original Text … You write …Presently, the biological Currently, “the biologicalsignificance of this lesion significance” of lesionmimicry is not mimicry in plants is notclear, although suggestions known, “althoughhave been made that they suggestions have beenmay represent defects in made that they maythe plants recognition of, or represent defects in theresponse to, pathogens. ... plants recognition of, orIn this paper we argue that response to, pathogens”this might be the case ... (Johal et al, 1995).
  23. 23. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE 2Original Text … You write …Presently, the biological Currently, “the biologicalsignificance of this lesion significance” of lesionmimicry is not mimicry in plants is notclear, although suggestions known, “althoughhave been made that they suggestions have beenmay represent defects in made that they maythe plants recognition of, or represent defects in theresponse to, pathogens. ... plants recognition of, orIn this paper we argue that response to, pathogens”this might be the case ... (Johal et al., 1995).
  24. 24. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE 3Original Text … You write …Presently, the biological Several researchers aresignificance of this lesion investigating themimicry is not significance of lesionclear, although suggestions mimicry. Johal et al. (1995)have been made that they argue that they maymay represent defects in represent defects in thethe plants recognition of, or plants recognition of, orresponse to, pathogens. ... response to, pathogens.In this paper we argue that However, other researchersthis might be the case ... (e.g., XYZ), have disputed this.
  25. 25. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE 3Original Text … You write …Presently, the biological Several researchers aresignificance of this lesion investigating themimicry is not significance of lesionclear, although suggestions mimicry. Johal et al. (1995)have been made that they argue that they maymay represent defects in represent defects in thethe plants recognition of, or plants recognition of, orresponse to, pathogens. ... response to, pathogens.In this paper we argue that However, other researchersthis might be the case ... (e.g., XYZ), have disputed this.
  26. 26. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE 4Original Text … You write …Presently, the biological Several researchers aresignificance of this lesion investigating themimicry is not significance of lesionclear, although suggestions mimicry. Johal et al. (1995)have been made that they argue that they maymay represent defects in indicate mutations thatthe plants recognition of, or inhibit the plants‟ ability toresponse to, pathogens. ... recognize and respond toIn this paper we argue that pathogens. However, otherthis might be the case ... researchers (e.g., XYZ, 2004), have
  27. 27. PLAGIARISM EXERCISE 4Original Text … You write …Presently, the biological Several researchers aresignificance of this lesion investigating themimicry is not significance of lesionclear, although suggestions mimicry. Johal et al. (1995)have been made that they argue that they maymay represent defects in indicate mutations thatthe plants recognition of, or inhibit the plants’ ability toresponse to, pathogens. ... recognize and respond toIn this paper we argue that pathogens. However, otherthis might be the case ... researchers (e.g., XYZ, 2004), have
  28. 28. RELATED TO PLAGIARISM• Fabrication (see case of John Darsee)• Falsification• Fair Use of Copyrighted Material
  29. 29. HUMAN SUBJECTS• Institutional Review Board (IRB) • Comité para la protección de los seres humanos en la investigación (CPSHI)• Transfondo Histórico • Someter las propuestas de investigación a revisión o escrutinio ético independiente del investigador, con el fin de evaluar el balance entre riesgos y beneficios y de velar por que el consentimiento de los sujetos fuese informado y voluntario. • Ejemplos de algunos estudios con serias violaciones: • El estudio sobre el proceso de deliberación de los jurados o Wichita Jury Study (1955); • El estudio para el desarrollo de la vacuna de la hepatitis, mejor conocido como Willowbrook Study (década de los años 50); • Los estudios sobre la obediencia de Milgram (principios de los años 60) • El estudio de Tuskegee (1932-1972).
  30. 30. HUMAN SUBJECTS• Trasfondo Histórico: • National Research Act (Public Law 93-348, 12 de julio de 1974). • Aprobada por el Congreso de EU. • Estableció los fundamentos del actual sistema de comités • Estableció la National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. • Recomendar regulaciones • Identificar principios generales para guiar la investigación con seres humanos en biomedicina y en las ciencias de la conducta. • Su trabajo fue de capital importancia para el desarrollo de las protecciones para los participantes humanos en la investigación científica. • 45 CFR 46 • Rige el trabajo del IRB de nuestro Recinto.
  31. 31. UPRM IRB:HTTP://WWW.UPRM.EDU/CPSHI/
  32. 32. HUMAN SUBJECTS• Las Tareas del IRB • Revisar todos los protocolos de revisión no exentos, 45 CFR 46.101. • De no ser exenta, ver si cualifica para revisión expedita o si debe ir a “ full committee review”. • Revisión expedita, • No es necesario que todos los miembros del Comité estudien la propuesta pero deben estar informados de los estudios aprobados de esta manera. • La determinación la hace el presidente del Comité y la revisión la lleva a cabo él mismo o designa a otros miembros del Comité. • “Full committee review” • Cada miembro del Comité debería recibir el protocolo (y su resumen), las hojas de documentación del consentimiento informado y el formulario de solicitud de revisión.
  33. 33. HUMAN SUBJECTS• Consideraciones del Comité al evaluar los protocolos: • Diseño y mérito científico. • Procedimientos para conseguir a los sujetos. Si se trata de una población vulnerable, el investigador tiene que justificar su uso. La reglamentación federal establece las poblaciones que se deben considerar vulnerables. • La descripción de los procedimientos de investigación y los instrumentos para verificar que se proteja la identidad de los participantes. • Riesgos e incomodidades para los sujetos. • Posibles beneficios para los sujetos o para la ciencia. • Compensación para los sujetos. • Proceso de consentimiento informado y su documentación. Si se justifica la dispensa de alguno de el los. • Protección de privacidad y confidencialidad.
  34. 34. UPRM IRB
  35. 35. CITI WEBPAGE:HTTPS://WWW.CITIPROGRAM.ORG/DEFAULT.ASP?
  36. 36. USE OF CITI AT UPRMEffective January 4, 2010, NSF implements Section 7009 ofthe America Creating Opportunities to MeaningfullyPromote Excellence in Technology, Education, andScience (COMPETES) Act:“The Director shall require that each institution that appliesfor financial assistance from the Foundation for scienceand engineering research or education describe in itsgrant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training andoversight in the responsible and ethical conduct ofresearch to undergraduate students, graduatestudents, and postdoctoral researchers participating in theproposed research project.”
  37. 37. USE OF CITI AT UPRM• All participants of grants and proposals awarded by NSF after December 2009 must comply with an RCR training plan. UPRM has chosen CITI to satisfy this NSF requirement. Currently RCR training must be completed by participants within the first two months of involvement or before project closing date, whichever is sooner.• PIs must identify a field or area that best suits the participants (undergraduate student, graduate student or postdoctoral researcher) needs in relation to the grant.• Instructions for using CITI can be found at http://cid.uprm.edu/Doc/PDU/Instructions to CITI RCR training.pdf.• Questions? Contact UPRM CITI Administrator at the UPRM R&D Center‟s Proposal Development Unit, Ms. Arlene Heredia, arlene.heredia@upr.edu, Phone: X-5856.
  38. 38. CASE STUDY: DECEPTION & HUMAN SUBJECTSWhen is Deception Ethically Justified in Research?Participants: To test Piliavin and Piliavins theory of bystanderintervention, the behavior of passengers was observed when anexperimenter, posing as a "victim" with a cane, pretended tocollapse in a moving subway car. To experimentally manipulate the"cost" of helping, in half of the conditions the victim "bled" from themouth and in half he did not bleed.The researchers assumed that the presence of blood increased thecost of helping because the sight of blood should arouse feelings offear and revulsion in the typical bystander. The researchers stagedapproximately 42 of these incidents, each lasting approximately 3minutes (the time between station stops)http://onlineethics.org/Topics/RespResearch/ResCases/psychology/deception.aspx
  39. 39. CASE STUDY: DECEPTION & HUMAN SUBJECTSQuestions1. How would you evaluate the scientific validity and social value of this study? Did the study adequately test the researchers hypothesis? Was it important to conduct this study in a naturalistic setting? Was it methodologically important to keep potential participants naive about the fact that a study was being conducted? Did members of society benefit from knowledge generated by the study? Did the research participants benefit from their participation in the study?2. How would you evaluate the potential costs of the study to science, society, and those participating in the research? Could the subway riders who saw the "victim" collapse be harmed by the conduct of this experiment? Were participants exposed to any potential harm above that which they might experience in their daily lives in public places? Were there ways that the psychologists could have conducted this study differently in an attempt to minimize potential harm?
  40. 40. CASE STUDY: DECEPTION & HUMAN SUBJECTSQuestions3. Was the autonomy (the right to self-determination) of research participants jeopardized in this study? Was participant privacy violated? Is informed consent necessary for naturalistic studies conducted in public settings? Could the hypothesis have been validly tested without using a deceptive research design? Are there ways to respect participant autonomy and privacy and still use deception?4. Taking into account the investigators dual responsibility to produce scientifically valid knowledge and to protect participants, what recommendations would you make regarding the conduct of this study if it were proposed today?
  41. 41. LET’S BE HAPPY • Justify your affinity to Clementine • Justify your affinity to Brad or Oliver • Which member of your team most closely has the attitude of Brad or Oliver?http://pbskids.org/loopscoops/happiness.html
  42. 42. SOCIAL CONTEXT & RESPONSIBILITY• What do people in my field do?• Who do they do it for (who hires me)?• Who benefits and who is harmed from my work or the work of my field?• How can I advance humanitarian causes such as social justice, equity, peace, community development, and sustainability in my work?• What are the power structures in my field that might prevent me from doing so?
  43. 43. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE• Define important skills and knowledge necessary to approach ethical issues in research • Get to know your resources • Go to workshops about RCR • Get connections with society and surroundings • Consider different stakeholders • Be honest and professional • Moral imagination – project and sympathize • Teamwork skills and Competence
  44. 44. CASE STUDY: GENETIC ENGINEERING & WORLD HUNGERYou have developed an innovative • Identify at least 3 typesgenetic engineering process thatincreases the nutrient content of of knowledge or skills, inÑame by a factor of 10, which has order ofthe potential to benefit countries relevance, that willsuch as Haiti and Somalia. The new help you frame thetechnique limits the naturalreproduction, and will need a decision makingconstant supply of the “seed”. A process for this case.multinational agricultural • Would you accept thebiotechnology corporation offersyou a great amount of resources for offer? Why?you to develop your research in • Devise two otherexchange for the exclusive rights of alternatives.production, and a word of honoragreement that it will provide food • How does the conceptassistance to communities in need. of HAPPINESS relates to the case?
  45. 45. • 7: social, biotechnology/agriculture, economics; legal, environment, corporate• 5: could improve quality of life; but might put too much power in corporation; skeptical to accept „word of honor‟• 3: allow „natural‟ generation of seeds; intellectual property• 2: what is important is for people to get food, corporate profits are a separate matter
  46. 46. REFLECTION ON COLLABORATION• Compare Impact of level of Collaboration in each of the 4 Different Activities: 1. Overview of Ethical Issues 2. Plagiarism Exercise 3. Happiness Video Activity 4. Skills and Knowledge 5. Case Study: Genetic Engineering & World HungerDid the level of collaboration make any difference?
  47. 47. QUALITIES OF THE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCHER• ? • Has Integrity• ?? • Technically Competent• ??? • Creative, imaginative, and able to consider• ???? alternatives• ????? • Cooperative • Has broad awareness • Has respect for others, their ideas, and their work • Understands ethics as integrated with, not separate from, overall academic pursuits
  48. 48. FURTHER RESOURCES• http://www.uprm.edu/cpshi/• onlineethics.org• cnx.org, search for “William Frey”• Ethics core• greatidea.uprm.edu• Morgan & Claypool E-book series @ biblioteca.uprm.edu >> Bases de Datos >> M• Please take a short questionnaire and download these slides at https://moodle.uprm.edu/course/view.php?id=1530 use enrollment key „rcr‟

×