Segway to What Extent Should Ethics Impact Consideration of the Arts?

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

December 23, 2020

The ideas and opinions expressed in this essay are the writer'south own and do non necessarily represent those of the NIH, NIEHS, or US government.

When about people call back of ethics (or morals), they call back of rules for distinguishing between correct and wrong, such equally the Golden Rule ("Exercise unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of professional conduct similar the Hippocratic Oath ("First of all, do no damage"), a religious creed similar the X Commandments ("Chiliad Shalt not kill..."), or a wise aphorisms similar the sayings of Confucius. This is the nearly common way of defining "ethics": norms for carry that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable beliefs.

Most people acquire upstanding norms at home, at school, in church building, or in other social settings. Although most people acquire their sense of correct and wrong during childhood, moral evolution occurs throughout life and man beings pass through different stages of growth as they mature. Ethical norms are and so ubiquitous that ane might be tempted to regard them every bit uncomplicated commonsense. On the other hand, if morality were nothing more than commonsense, then why are there so many upstanding disputes and issues in our society?

I plausible caption of these disagreements is that all people recognize some common upstanding norms but translate, apply, and residual them in unlike ways in light of their own values and life experiences. For instance, two people could hold that murder is incorrect but disagree nearly the morality of abortion because they accept unlike understandings of what information technology means to be a homo.

Most societies as well have legal rules that govern behavior, but upstanding norms tend to be broader and more informal than laws. Although most societies use laws to enforce widely accustomed moral standards and ethical and legal rules use similar concepts, ethics and law are non the same. An action may exist legal but unethical or illegal but ethical. We tin can also use upstanding concepts and principles to criticize, evaluate, advise, or translate laws. Indeed, in the last century, many social reformers accept urged citizens to disobey laws they regarded as immoral or unjust laws. Peaceful civil disobedience is an upstanding manner of protesting laws or expressing political viewpoints.

Some other way of defining 'ideals' focuses on the disciplines that study standards of conduct, such equally philosophy, theology, police, psychology, or sociology. For example, a "medical ethicist" is someone who studies ethical standards in medicine. One may likewise define ethics as a method, process, or perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing circuitous problems and problems. For instance, in because a complex issue like global warming, ane may take an economical, ecological, political, or ethical perspective on the problem. While an economist might examine the price and benefits of various policies related to global warming, an ecology ethicist could examine the ethical values and principles at stake.

Run across ethics in exercise at NIEHS

Read latest updates in our monthly Global Environmental Health Newsletter

Many dissimilar disciplines, institutions, and professions have standards for behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. These standards also help members of the discipline to coordinate their deportment or activities and to establish the public's trust of the discipline. For instance, ethical standards govern carry in medicine, law, engineering, and business. Upstanding norms as well serve the aims or goals of enquiry and apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or artistic activities. There is fifty-fifty a specialized discipline, research ideals, which studies these norms. See Glossary of Usually Used Terms in Research Ideals.

In that location are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in enquiry. Start, norms promote the aims of research, such every bit noesis, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting inquiry data promote the truth and minimize error.

Join an NIEHS Study

See how we put research Ethics to practise.

Visit Joinastudy.niehs.nih.govto meet the various studies NIEHS perform.

2nd, since inquiry ofttimes involves a peachy deal of cooperation and coordination among many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote the values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For instance, 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 property interests while encouraging collaboration. Nigh researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to accept their ideas stolen or disclosed prematurely.

Third, many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers tin be held accountable to the public. For instance, federal policies on enquiry misconduct, conflicts of interest, the human subjects protections, and animal care and utilize are necessary in lodge to brand sure that researchers who are funded by public money can be held answerable to the public.

Fourth, ethical norms in enquiry also assist to build public support for enquiry. People are more than likely to fund a research project if they tin trust the quality and integrity of inquiry.

Finally, many of the norms of enquiry promote a variety of other important moral and social values, such every bit social responsibility, homo rights, creature welfare, compliance with the law, and public health and safety. Ethical lapses in research tin significantly harm man and animal subjects, students, and the public. For example, a researcher who fabricates information in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a researcher who fails to abide by regulations and guidelines relating to radiations or biological safety may jeopardize his wellness and safety or the health and safe of staff and students.

Codes and Policies for Inquiry Ethics

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

Upstanding Principles

The following is a rough and general summary of some ethical principles that various codes accost*:

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. Do not deceive colleagues, research sponsors, or the public.

Objectivity

Strive to avoid 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 financial interests that may bear upon research.

Integrity

Go along your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for consistency of idea and action.

Carefulness

Avoid careless errors and negligence; advisedly and critically examine your own piece of work and the work of your peers. Proceed skilful records of research activities, such equally data collection, research pattern, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

Openness

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

Transparency

Disclose methods, materials, assumptions, analyses, and other information needed to evaluate your research.

Accountability

Take responsibility for your part in inquiry and be prepared to give an account (i.e. an explanation or justification) of what you did on a research project and why.

Intellectual Property

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

Confidentiality

Protect confidential communications, such every bit papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records.

Responsible Publication

Publish in social club to advance research and scholarship, not to advance merely your own career. Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.

Responsible Mentoring

Help to educate, mentor, and advise students. Promote their welfare and allow them to brand their own decisions.

Respect for Colleagues

Respect your colleagues and treat them fairly.

Social Responsibility

Strive to promote social adept and preclude or mitigate social harms through research, public instruction, and advancement.

Non-Discrimination

Avoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the footing of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors not related to scientific competence and integrity.

Competence

Maintain and improve your ain professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in scientific discipline as a whole.

Legality

Know and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.

Animal Care

Show proper respect and intendance for animals when using them in research. Do non conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.

Man Subjects protection

When conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect man dignity, privacy, and autonomy; have 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 Behave of Research, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Printing).

Upstanding Determination Making in Research

Although codes, policies, and principles are very important and useful, similar any gear up of rules, they do non encompass every situation, they oftentimes conflict, and they require considerable interpretation. It is therefore important for researchers to learn how to translate, assess, and apply various inquiry rules and how to make decisions and to act ethically in various situations. The vast bulk of decisions involve the straightforward awarding of ethical rules. For example, consider the post-obit case,

Case 01

The enquiry protocol for a study of a drug on hypertension requires the assistants of the drug at unlike doses to 50 laboratory mice, with chemical and behavioral tests to determine toxic effects. Tom has almost finished the experiment for Dr. Q. He has only 5 mice left to exam. However, he really wants to terminate his piece of work in time to go to Florida on jump suspension with his friends, who are leaving tonight. He has injected the drug in all 50 mice but has non completed all of the tests. He therefore decides to extrapolate from the 45 completed results to produce the 5 additional results.

Many dissimilar research ethics policies would hold that Tom has acted unethically by fabricating information. If this written report were sponsored by a federal agency, such as the NIH, his actions would constitute a form of research misconduct , which the government defines equally "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" (or FFP). Actions that nigh all researchers allocate as unethical are viewed as misconduct. Information technology is important to recall, however, that misconduct occurs only when researchers intend to deceive: honest errors related to sloppiness, poor record keeping, miscalculations, bias, cocky-deception, and even negligence exercise not constitute misconduct. Also, reasonable disagreements about research methods, procedures, and interpretations do not constitute research misconduct. Consider the following case:

Example 02

Dr. T has just discovered a mathematical error in his paper that has been accepted for publication in a journal. The error does not affect the overall results of his research, but information technology is potentially misleading. The journal has just gone to press, and then it is besides late to grab the mistake earlier information technology appears in print. In order to avoid embarrassment, Dr. T decides to ignore the fault.

Dr. T's fault is not misconduct nor is his conclusion to have no action to correct the error. Most researchers, likewise as many unlike policies and codes would say that Dr. T should tell the journal (and any coauthors) nearly 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 research.

There are many other activities that the government does not define as "misconduct" merely which are nevertheless regarded past nigh researchers as unethical. These are sometimes referred to equally "other deviations" from acceptable inquiry practices and include:

• Publishing the aforementioned paper in two unlike journals without telling the editors
• Submitting the same paper to dissimilar journals without telling the editors
• Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in club 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 data from a newspaper that you are reviewing for a periodical
• Using information, ideas, or methods you learn about while reviewing a grant or a papers without permission
• Trimming outliers from a data set up without discussing your reasons in paper
• Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your inquiry
• Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving peers acceptable information to review your work
• Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other people in the field or relevant prior work
• Stretching the truth on a grant application in society 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 society to run into who can do information technology the fastest
• Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or mail service-doctoral students
• Declining to keep proficient research records
• Failing to maintain inquiry information for a reasonable period of fourth dimension
• Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author'southward submission
• Promising a student a better class for sexual favors
• Using a racist epithet in the laboratory
• Making significant deviations from the research protocol canonical by your establishment's Animal Care and Utilize Commission or Institutional Review Board for Man Subjects Enquiry without telling the committee or the board
• Not reporting an adverse result in a human inquiry experiment
• Wasting animals in research
• Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your establishment'due south biosafety rules
• Sabotaging someone's work
• Stealing supplies, books, or information
• Rigging an experiment then y'all know how it will turn out
• Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs
• Owning over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your enquiry and not disclosing this financial interest
• Deliberately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to obtain economic benefits

These actions would exist regarded as unethical past about scientists and some might fifty-fifty be illegal in some cases. About of these would also violate dissimilar professional ethics codes or institutional policies. However, they exercise not fall into the narrow category of actions that the government classifies as research misconduct. Indeed, there has been considerable debate about the definition of "research misconduct" and many researchers and policy makers are non satisfied with the authorities's narrow definition that focuses on FFP. However, given the huge listing of potential offenses that might fall into the category "other serious deviations," and the applied bug with defining and policing these other deviations, it is understandable why authorities officials have chosen to limit their focus.

Finally, situations oft ascend in research in which different people disagree nearly the proper course of activeness and there is no broad consensus about what should be done. In these situations, there may be good arguments on both sides of the issue and different ethical principles may conflict. These situations create hard decisions for research known as upstanding or moral dilemmas . Consider the following example:

Instance 03

Dr. Wexford is the principal investigator of a large, epidemiological study on the health of 10,000 agricultural workers. She has an impressive dataset that includes information on demographics, environmental exposures, diet, genetics, and diverse illness outcomes such as cancer, Parkinson's disease (PD), and ALS. She has just published a newspaper on the relationship between pesticide exposure and PD in a prestigious periodical. 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 skin cancer. Dr. Wexford was planning to acquit a study on this topic.

Dr. Wexford faces a difficult choice. On the ane mitt, the upstanding norm of openness obliges her to share information with the other inquiry team. Her funding bureau may also have rules that obligate her to share data. On the other hand, if she shares information with the other squad, they may publish results that she was planning to publish, thus depriving her (and her team) of recognition and priority. It seems that there are adept arguments on both sides of this issue and Dr. Wexford needs to take some time to think about what she should do. One possible choice is to share data, provided that the investigators sign a data use understanding. The understanding could ascertain commanded uses of the data, publication plans, authorship, etc. Another option would exist to offer to collaborate with the researchers.

The post-obit are some step that researchers, such as Dr. Wexford, can take to deal with ethical dilemmas in research:

What is the problem or issue?

Information technology is always important to go a clear statement of the trouble. In this example, the effect is whether to share data with the other inquiry team.

What is the relevant information?

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

What are the different options?

People may neglect to run across unlike options due to a limited imagination, bias, ignorance, or fear. In this example, 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 ethical codes or policies as well as legal rules utilize to these different options?

The university or funding agency may accept policies on information management that employ to this instance. Broader ethical rules, such equally openness and respect for credit and intellectual property, may too apply to this instance. Laws relating to intellectual property may exist relevant.

Are in that location any people who tin offer upstanding advice?

It may exist useful to seek communication from a colleague, a senior researcher, your department chair, an ethics or compliance officer, or anyone else you tin can trust. In the instance, Dr. Wexford might desire to talk to her supervisor and inquiry team earlier making a decision.

After because these questions, a person facing an upstanding dilemma may decide to ask more than questions, gather more information, explore unlike options, or consider other upstanding rules. However, at some point he or she will have to make a conclusion and then accept activeness. Ideally, a person who makes a decision in an upstanding dilemma should be able to justify his or her decision to himself or herself, equally well as colleagues, administrators, and other people who might be affected past the decision. He or she should be able to articulate reasons for his or her conduct and should consider the following questions in order to explain how he or she arrived at his or her decision: .

• Which pick will probably have the best overall consequences for science and society?
• Which option could stand upwards to further publicity and scrutiny?
• Which pick could you not live with?
• Think of the wisest person you know. What would he or she do in this situation?
• Which choice would be the most just, off-white, or responsible?

After considering all of these questions, one still might discover it difficult to decide what to do. If this is the case, then it may exist advisable to consider others means of making the conclusion, 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 function in ethical decision-making but in that location are limits to its ability to solve all ethical dilemmas in a finite amount of time.

Promoting Ethical Acquit in Science

Virtually academic institutions in the US crave undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate students to have some education in the responsible acquit of research (RCR). The NIH and NSF have both mandated training in research ideals for students and trainees. Many academic institutions outside of the US take also adult educational curricula in enquiry ethics

Those of you lot who are taking or have taken courses in research ethics may be wondering why you are required to have education in research ethics. Yous may believe that yous are highly ethical and know the deviation betwixt right and wrong. You would never fabricate or falsify data or plagiarize. Indeed, you too may believe that virtually of your colleagues are highly ethical and that at that place is no ethics problem in research..

If you feel this way, relax. No one is accusing yous of acting unethically. Indeed, the testify produced and then far shows that misconduct is a very rare occurrence in research, although at that place is considerable variation among various estimates. The rate of misconduct has been estimated to be every bit low every bit 0.01% of researchers per year (based on confirmed cases of misconduct in federally funded research) to as high every bit 1% of researchers per year (based on self-reports of misconduct on anonymous surveys). Encounter Shamoo and Resnik (2015), cited higher up.

Clearly, it would be useful to take more data on this topic, only and then far there is no testify that scientific discipline has become ethically corrupt, despite some highly publicized scandals. Fifty-fifty if misconduct is merely a rare occurrence, it tin can even so accept a tremendous bear upon on scientific discipline and society because information technology tin compromise the integrity of inquiry, erode the public's trust in science, and waste fourth dimension and resource. Volition education in research ethics help reduce the rate of misconduct in science? Information technology is too early on to tell. The answer to this question depends, in part, on how one understands the causes of misconduct. There are two main theories about why researchers commit misconduct. Co-ordinate to the "bad apple tree" theory, most scientists are highly ethical. Only researchers who are morally corrupt, economically desperate, or psychologically disturbed commit misconduct. Moreover, only a fool would commit misconduct considering science's peer review system and self-correcting mechanisms will eventually catch those who try to cheat the organisation. In any case, a grade in enquiry ethics will have little impact on "bad apples," one might argue.

According to the "stressful" or "imperfect" surroundings theory, misconduct occurs because various institutional pressures, incentives, and constraints encourage people to commit misconduct, such as 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 (run across Shamoo and Resnik 2015). Moreover, defenders of the stressful surroundings theory indicate out that science'due south peer review system is far from perfect and that it is relatively easy to cheat the system. Erroneous or fraudulent research ofttimes enters the public record without being detected for years. Misconduct probably results from environmental and private causes, i.e. when people who are morally weak, ignorant, or insensitive are placed in stressful or imperfect environments. In any case, a course in research ideals can be useful in helping to prevent deviations from norms fifty-fifty if information technology does not forbid misconduct. Teaching in enquiry ethics is can help people get a better agreement of ethical standards, policies, and issues and meliorate upstanding judgment and decision making. Many of the deviations that occur in inquiry may occur because researchers simply do not know or accept never idea seriously well-nigh some of the ethical norms of research. For example, some unethical authorship practices probably reflect traditions and practices that have non been questioned seriously until recently. If the managing director of a lab is named as an writer on every paper that comes from his lab, even if he does not make a significant contribution, what could be wrong with that? That's just the way it's done, one might argue. Another example where there may be some ignorance or mistaken traditions is conflicts of interest in research. A researcher may think 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 maybe a academy administrator sees no upstanding problem in taking a large gift with strings attached from a pharmaceutical company. Mayhap a physician thinks that information technology is perfectly appropriate to receive a $300 finder'southward fee for referring patients into a clinical trial.

If "deviations" from upstanding acquit occur in research every bit a result of ignorance or a failure to reflect critically on problematic traditions, then a form in research ethics may aid reduce the charge per unit of serious deviations past improving the researcher's understanding of ethics and past sensitizing him or her to the issues.

Finally, education in research ethics should be able to help researchers grapple with the upstanding dilemmas they are probable to run into by introducing them to important concepts, tools, principles, and methods that can exist useful in resolving these dilemmas. Scientists must deal with a number of different controversial topics, such equally homo embryonic stem jail cell research, cloning, genetic technology, and research involving animal or homo subjects, which require upstanding reflection and deliberation.

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

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

lathamtheighty1943.blogspot.com

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

Share this post