Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development: Research Perspectives

by David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D.

December 23, 2020

The ideas and opinions expressed in this essay are the author'due south ain and exercise not necessarily represent those of the NIH, NIEHS, or US regime.

When most people call up of ethics (or morals), they remember of rules for distinguishing between right and incorrect, such every bit the Gold Rule ("Practise unto others equally you would have them exercise unto you"), a lawmaking of professional conduct like the Hippocratic Adjuration ("Kickoff of all, exercise no harm"), a religious creed similar the 10 Commandments ("1000 Shalt not kill..."), or a wise aphorisms like the sayings of Confucius. This is the most common mode of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish betwixt acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

Most people learn ethical norms at dwelling, at schoolhouse, in church, or in other social settings. Although well-nigh people learn their sense of right and wrong during childhood, moral development occurs throughout life and homo beings pass through different stages of growth as they mature. Upstanding norms are so ubiquitous that i might be tempted to regard them as simple commonsense. On the other hand, if morality were cypher more than than commonsense, and so why are there so many upstanding disputes and issues in our society?

Ane plausible explanation of these disagreements is that all people recognize some mutual upstanding norms but translate, use, and balance them in dissimilar ways in low-cal of their ain values and life experiences. For example, 2 people could concord that murder is wrong just disagree about the morality of abortion considering they have different understandings of what it means to be a human being.

Virtually societies also have legal rules that govern behavior, but ethical norms tend to be broader and more informal than laws. Although well-nigh societies employ laws to enforce widely accepted moral standards and ethical and legal rules utilise similar concepts, ethics and law are non the same. An action may be legal but unethical or illegal but ethical. Nosotros tin can as well utilise ethical concepts and principles to criticize, evaluate, propose, or interpret laws. Indeed, in the last century, many social reformers have urged citizens to disobey laws they regarded as immoral or unjust laws. Peaceful civil disobedience is an ethical style of protesting laws or expressing political viewpoints.

Another fashion of defining 'ethics' focuses on the disciplines that study standards of conduct, such as philosophy, theology, law, psychology, or folklore. For example, a "medical ethicist" is someone who studies ethical standards in medicine. 1 may besides define ethics as a method, procedure, or perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues. For instance, in considering a complex issue similar global warming, i may take an economic, ecological, political, or ethical perspective on the problem. While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of various policies related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could examine the upstanding values and principles at stake.

See ethics in practice at NIEHS

Read latest updates in our monthly Global Environmental Health Newsletter

Many unlike disciplines, institutions, and professions have standards for behavior that accommodate their particular aims and goals. These standards besides assistance members of the discipline to coordinate their actions or activities and to constitute the public's trust of the subject field. For example, upstanding standards govern conduct in medicine, law, engineering, and concern. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and utilise to people who conduct scientific enquiry or other scholarly or creative activities. There is fifty-fifty a specialized discipline, enquiry ideals, which studies these norms. See Glossary of Commonly Used Terms in Inquiry Ethics.

There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. Starting time, norms promote the aims of enquiry, such as noesis, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimize error.

Join an NIEHS Study

Run into how nosotros put inquiry Ethics to practice.

Visit Joinastudy.niehs.nih.govto run across the diverse studies NIEHS perform.

2d, since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination amid many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote the values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, common respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in research, such as guidelines for authorship, copyright and patenting policies, information sharing policies, and confidentiality rules in peer review, are designed to protect intellectual belongings interests while encouraging collaboration. Almost researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed prematurely.

Third, many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers tin exist held accountable to the public. For instance, federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of involvement, the human subjects protections, and creature intendance and utilise are necessary in order to make certain that researchers who are funded by public money can exist held accountable to the public.

Fourth, upstanding norms in research also help to build public support for research. People are more probable to fund a research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of enquiry.

Finally, many of the norms of enquiry promote a diversity of other of import moral and social values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public wellness and safe. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm man and brute subjects, students, and the public. For example, a researcher who fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a researcher who fails to bide past regulations and guidelines relating to radiation or biological safe may jeopardize his health and safety or the wellness and prophylactic of staff and students.

Codes and Policies for Enquiry Ethics

Given the importance of ethics for the conduct of enquiry, it should come as no surprise that many different professional associations, government agencies, and universities have adopted specific codes, rules, and policies relating to inquiry ethics. Many government agencies accept ethics rules for funded researchers.

Upstanding Principles

The post-obit is a crude and general summary of some ethical principles that diverse codes address*:

Honesty

Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, and publication status. Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data. Practise not deceive colleagues, research sponsors, or the public.

Objectivity

Strive to avert bias in experimental design, data analysis, data estimation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required. Avoid or minimize bias or self-deception. Disclose personal or fiscal interests that may impact inquiry.

Integrity

Proceed your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for consistency of thought and action.

Carefulness

Avert devil-may-care errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers. Go on proficient records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

Openness

Share data, results, ideas, tools, resource. Be open to criticism and new ideas.

Transparency

Disembalm methods, materials, assumptions, analyses, and other information needed to evaluate your inquiry.

Accountability

Take responsibility for your office in research and be prepared to give an business relationship (i.eastward. an explanation or justification) of what yous did on a inquiry project and why.

Intellectual Property

Accolade patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. Exercise not employ unpublished data, methods, or results without permission. Give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research. Never plagiarize.

Confidentiality

Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, merchandise or military secrets, and patient records.

Responsible Publication

Publish in society to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career. Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.

Responsible Mentoring

Help to educate, mentor, and advise students. Promote their welfare and let them to make their own decisions.

Respect for Colleagues

Respect your colleagues and care for them adequately.

Social Responsibility

Strive to promote social good and forbid or mitigate social harms through research, public instruction, and advocacy.

Non-Discrimination

Avoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sexual activity, race, ethnicity, or other factors non related to scientific competence and integrity.

Competence

Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong teaching and learning; accept steps to promote competence in science equally a whole.

Legality

Know and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.

Brute Intendance

Evidence proper respect and treat animals when using them in research. Practice not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.

Human Subjects protection

When conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable populations; and strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research adequately.

* Adapted from Shamoo A and Resnik D. 2015. Responsible Conduct of Enquiry, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford Academy Press).

Ethical Conclusion Making in Research

Although codes, policies, and principles are very important and useful, like whatsoever gear up of rules, they do non cover every situation, they often conflict, and they require considerable estimation. It is therefore important for researchers to acquire how to translate, assess, and apply various inquiry rules and how to make decisions and to act ethically in diverse situations. The vast majority of decisions involve the straightforward application of ethical rules. For instance, consider the following case,

Case 01

The research protocol for a study of a drug on hypertension requires the administration of the drug at unlike doses to 50 laboratory mice, with chemic and behavioral tests to determine toxic effects. Tom has almost finished the experiment for Dr. Q. He has only 5 mice left to test. However, he actually wants to finish his piece of work in time to go to Florida on spring suspension with his friends, who are leaving tonight. He has injected the drug in all 50 mice but has not completed all of the tests. He therefore decides to extrapolate from the 45 completed results to produce the five additional results.

Many different research ethics policies would concur that Tom has acted unethically by fabricating data. If this written report were sponsored by a federal bureau, such as the NIH, his deportment would found a course of research misconduct , which the regime defines as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" (or FFP). Actions that nearly all researchers allocate as unethical are viewed as misconduct. It is important to remember, nonetheless, that misconduct occurs only when researchers intend to deceive: honest errors related to sloppiness, poor record keeping, miscalculations, bias, cocky-deception, and even negligence do non constitute misconduct. Also, reasonable disagreements well-nigh research methods, procedures, and interpretations do not institute inquiry misconduct. Consider the following case:

Example 02

Dr. T has just discovered a mathematical error in his newspaper that has been accepted for publication in a journal. The fault does not affect the overall results of his research, merely it is potentially misleading. The journal has merely gone to press, so it is as well belatedly to take hold of the error earlier it appears in print. In society to avoid embarrassment, Dr. T decides to ignore the error.

Dr. T'southward error is not misconduct nor is his conclusion to have no action to correct the mistake. Almost researchers, also as many different policies and codes would say that Dr. T should tell the journal (and whatever coauthors) about the error and consider publishing a correction or errata. Failing to publish a correction would exist unethical because it would violate norms relating to honesty and objectivity in inquiry.

There are many other activities that the regime does not define equally "misconduct" but which are still regarded by most researchers as unethical. These are sometimes referred to every bit "other deviations" from acceptable research practices and include:

• Publishing the same paper in ii unlike journals without telling the editors
• Submitting the same newspaper to different journals without telling the editors
• Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you lot are the sole inventor
• Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the paper
• Discussing with your colleagues confidential information from a paper that you are reviewing for a journal
• Using data, ideas, or methods you learn most while reviewing a grant or a papers without permission
• Trimming outliers from a data gear up without discussing your reasons in paper
• Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your research
• Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving peers adequate data to review your work
• Conducting a review of the literature that fails to admit the contributions of other people in the field or relevant prior work
• Stretching the truth on a grant application in social club to convince reviewers that your project will make a significant contribution to the field
• Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vita
• Giving the same research project to 2 graduate students in order to see who can do it the fastest
• Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or postal service-doctoral students
• Failing to go on good research records
• Failing to maintain research information for a reasonable period of time
• Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's submission
• Promising a student a better grade for sexual favors
• Using a racist epithet in the laboratory
• Making significant deviations from the enquiry protocol canonical by your establishment's Animal Care and Utilize Committee or Institutional Review Lath for Man Subjects Research without telling the committee or the lath
• Non reporting an adverse event in a man inquiry experiment
• Wasting animals in enquiry
• Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's biosafety rules
• Sabotaging someone'south work
• Stealing supplies, books, or data
• Rigging an experiment so you lot know how information technology will turn out
• Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or reckoner programs
• Owning over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your enquiry and not disclosing this financial involvement
• Deliberately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to obtain economical benefits

These actions would be regarded as unethical by most scientists and some might even be illegal in some cases. Most of these would also violate different professional person ethics codes or institutional policies. Withal, they do not fall into the narrow category of actions that the government classifies as inquiry misconduct. Indeed, in that location has been considerable debate about the definition of "research misconduct" and many researchers and policy makers are non satisfied with the government's narrow definition that focuses on FFP. However, given the huge list of potential offenses that might fall into the category "other serious deviations," and the practical issues with defining and policing these other deviations, information technology is understandable why government officials take chosen to limit their focus.

Finally, situations frequently arise in research in which different people disagree about the proper course of action and there is no wide consensus about what should exist washed. In these situations, there may be practiced arguments on both sides of the result and dissimilar ethical principles may conflict. These situations create difficult decisions for inquiry known as upstanding or moral dilemmas . Consider the post-obit case:

Case 03

Dr. Wexford is the principal investigator of a large, epidemiological study on the wellness of 10,000 agricultural workers. She has an impressive dataset that includes information on demographics, environmental exposures, nutrition, genetics, and various disease outcomes such every bit cancer, Parkinson's disease (PD), and ALS. She has just published a newspaper on the relationship between pesticide exposure and PD in a prestigious journal. She is planning to publish many other papers from her dataset. She receives a request from another research team that wants access to her complete dataset. They are interested in examining the relationship between pesticide exposures and pare cancer. Dr. Wexford was planning to behave a study on this topic.

Dr. Wexford faces a difficult choice. On the 1 hand, the ethical norm of openness obliges her to share data with the other enquiry squad. Her funding agency may also have rules that obligate her to share information. On the other mitt, if she shares data with the other team, they may publish results that she was planning to publish, thus depriving her (and her squad) of recognition and priority. It seems that there are adept arguments on both sides of this upshot and Dr. Wexford needs to take some fourth dimension to remember about what she should do. 1 possible option is to share data, provided that the investigators sign a information apply agreement. The understanding could ascertain commanded uses of the data, publication plans, authorship, etc. Another choice would be to offering to collaborate with the researchers.

The following are some step that researchers, such equally Dr. Wexford, tin take to deal with upstanding dilemmas in research:

What is the problem or issue?

It is always of import to go a clear statement of the problem. In this instance, the issue is whether to share information with the other research squad.

What is the relevant data?

Many bad decisions are made as a result of poor data. To know what to do, Dr. Wexford needs to have more information concerning such matters every bit university or funding bureau or periodical policies that may utilize to this state of affairs, the team's intellectual property interests, the possibility of negotiating some kind of understanding with the other team, whether the other team also has some data it is willing to share, the impact of the potential publications, etc.

What are the different options?

People may fail to meet unlike options due to a express imagination, bias, ignorance, or fearfulness. In this case, there may be other choices besides 'share' or 'don't share,' such as 'negotiate an agreement' or 'offer to collaborate with the researchers.'

How do upstanding codes or policies too as legal rules apply to these different options?

The university or funding bureau may have policies on information management that apply to this case. Broader ethical rules, such equally openness and respect for credit and intellectual belongings, may also utilise to this instance. Laws relating to intellectual property may be relevant.

Are there whatsoever people who tin can offer ethical advice?

Information technology may exist useful to seek advice from a colleague, a senior researcher, your department chair, an ethics or compliance officer, or anyone else you can trust. In the instance, Dr. Wexford might want to talk to her supervisor and research team before making a decision.

Later considering these questions, a person facing an ethical dilemma may decide to inquire more questions, get together more information, explore different options, or consider other upstanding rules. However, at some point he or she will accept to make a decision and so take action. Ideally, a person who makes a decision in an ethical dilemma should be able to justify his or her conclusion to himself or herself, besides as colleagues, administrators, and other people who might exist affected by the conclusion. He or she should be able to articulate reasons for his or her conduct and should consider the following questions in gild to explain how he or she arrived at his or her decision: .

• Which choice volition probably have the best overall consequences for science and society?
• Which choice could stand up to further publicity and scrutiny?
• Which choice could you non live with?
• Call back of the wisest person y'all know. What would he or she practise in this state of affairs?
• Which choice would be the nigh but, fair, or responsible?

After considering all of these questions, one still might find it difficult to determine what to do. If this is the case, then it may be advisable to consider others ways of making the decision, such every bit going with a gut feeling or intuition, seeking guidance through prayer or meditation, or even flipping a coin. Endorsing these methods in this context need not imply that upstanding decisions are irrational, however. The main point is that human reasoning plays a pivotal role in ethical decision-making but in that location are limits to its power to solve all ethical dilemmas in a finite amount of time.

Promoting Ethical Behave in Science

Most academic institutions in the US require undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate students to have some education in the responsible conduct of inquiry (RCR). The NIH and NSF have both mandated training in research ideals for students and trainees. Many academic institutions outside of the US have also developed educational curricula in research ethics

Those of y'all who are taking or have taken courses in research ideals may be wondering why you are required to have didactics in research ethics. You may believe that you are highly ethical and know the difference between right and incorrect. You lot would never fabricate or falsify information or plagiarize. Indeed, you lot also may believe that most of your colleagues are highly upstanding and that there is no ideals trouble in research..

If yous experience this way, relax. No ane is accusing yous of interim unethically. Indeed, the testify produced so far shows that misconduct is a very rare occurrence in enquiry, although there is considerable variation among various estimates. The charge per unit of misconduct has been estimated to exist as depression equally 0.01% of researchers per yr (based on confirmed cases of misconduct in federally funded research) to equally high equally 1% of researchers per year (based on cocky-reports of misconduct on bearding surveys). See Shamoo and Resnik (2015), cited in a higher place.

Clearly, it would be useful to have more data on this topic, merely then far at that place is no show that science has become ethically decadent, despite some highly publicized scandals. Even if misconduct is only a rare occurrence, it can still have a tremendous impact on scientific discipline and order considering it tin compromise the integrity of research, erode the public's trust in science, and waste fourth dimension and resource. Volition teaching in research ethics help reduce the rate of misconduct in science? It is also early to tell. The answer to this question depends, in part, on how one understands the causes of misconduct. There are 2 main theories virtually why researchers commit misconduct. Co-ordinate to the "bad apple" theory, most scientists are highly ethical. Only researchers who are morally corrupt, economically desperate, or psychologically disturbed commit misconduct. Moreover, simply a fool would commit misconduct because scientific discipline's peer review system and cocky-correcting mechanisms will somewhen catch those who try to cheat the arrangement. In whatever instance, a course in research ethics will have petty bear on on "bad apples," 1 might argue.

According to the "stressful" or "imperfect" environment theory, misconduct occurs because various institutional pressures, incentives, and constraints encourage people to commit misconduct, such every bit pressures to publish or obtain grants or contracts, career ambitions, the pursuit of profit or fame, poor supervision of students and trainees, and poor oversight of researchers (come across Shamoo and Resnik 2015). Moreover, defenders of the stressful environment theory point out that science'southward peer review organization is far from perfect and that it is relatively easy to cheat the arrangement. Erroneous or fraudulent research ofttimes enters the public record without being detected for years. Misconduct probably results from environmental and individual causes, i.due east. when people who are morally weak, ignorant, or insensitive are placed in stressful or imperfect environments. In any example, a class in research ethics can exist useful in helping to preclude deviations from norms even if it does non prevent misconduct. Educational activity in enquiry ethics is tin can help people get a better agreement of upstanding standards, policies, and issues and improve ethical judgment and decision making. Many of the deviations that occur in research may occur because researchers simply practise non know or have never thought seriously near some of the upstanding norms of research. For example, some unethical authorship practices probably reflect traditions and practices that have not been questioned seriously until recently. If the director of a lab is named as an author on every paper that comes from his lab, even if he does not make a significant contribution, what could be incorrect with that? That'south just the fashion it's done, 1 might contend. Some other example where at that place may exist some ignorance or mistaken traditions is conflicts of interest in inquiry. A researcher may call up that a "normal" or "traditional" financial relationship, such as accepting stock or a consulting fee from a drug company that sponsors her research, raises no serious ethical issues. Or perhaps a university administrator sees no ethical problem in taking a large gift with strings attached from a pharmaceutical company. Maybe a physician thinks that it is perfectly advisable to receive a $300 finder'southward fee for referring patients into a clinical trial.

If "deviations" from ethical conduct occur in research as a result of ignorance or a failure to reverberate critically on problematic traditions, then a course in enquiry ethics may aid reduce the rate of serious deviations by improving the researcher's agreement of ideals and by sensitizing him or her to the issues.

Finally, teaching in research ideals should be able to help researchers grapple with the ethical dilemmas they are likely to come across by introducing them to important concepts, tools, principles, and methods that can be useful in resolving these dilemmas. Scientists must deal with a number of different controversial topics, such as human embryonic stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, and enquiry involving fauna or man subjects, which require ethical reflection and deliberation.

David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D.
Bioethicist

Tel 984-287-4208
resnikd@niehs.nih.gov

hankepretage85.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm

Share this post