Week 7 - Ethics Flashcards
(11 cards)
History of ethics in science
Tuskegee syphilis study
- 600 impoverished black workers exposed to syphilis, no treatment given, 128> died
Nuremberg Trials
- German doctors found to have conducted unethical experiments
Nuremberg Code 1947
- Free and informed consent
- Research must be fruitful
- Scientific basis justifying experiment
- Avoid unnecessary suffering
- No research if death/disability likely
- Risks can’t exceed benefits
- Adequate facilities necessary
- Researchers must be qualified
- Freedom to withdraw
- Must stop if injury is likely
None of this was legally binding (still up to researcher discretion)
Mistreatment after Nuremberg Code
1963 Brooklyn study - 22 geriatric patients injected with live cancer cells
Stanley Milgram - psychological stress on patients
Declaration of Helsinki 1964
Each experiment must be clearly formulated and given to independent committee in advance for guidance (discretion no longer with researcher)
Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
Purpose - to guide responsible research conduct
Written specifically for universities and public institutions
Compliance required for funding
Principles - management of data, trainee supervision, publication, authorship, peer review, COIs, collaboration across institutions
National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research
National standards for ethical human research
Requires respect and protection of Ns, and fosters research that benefits community
Methods of human research
Surveys, interviews, focus groups, undergoing testing, being observed, giving personal information, bodily matter
Use of animals
Requires ethics approval (Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes)
Respect for animals must underpin all decisions
- Replacement - use alternate methods
- Reduction - as few animals as possible
- Refinement - minimise distress
Conflict of Interest
When financial or personal considerations could compromise conduct
Examples - financial benefit, peer reviewer researching something similar, personal relation to author
Study found many research psychiatrists received consulting fees from companies whose drugs they were studying (and underreported it)
Breaches and resolution
Minor matters handled within institution, serious matters are criminally prosecuted
Complaint may involve - discreet investigation, formal inquiry, sanction, actions to remedy, advice to expert groups, public statement
A complaint equals research misconduct if:
1. Breach of Australian code
2. Intent and deliberation, recklessness or gross negligence
3. Serious consequences
Includes fabrication, deception in research, failure to declare COI, not following up ethics recommendations, misleading authorship
Scientists behaving badly
Many scientists admitted to engaging in questionable behaviours threatening scientific integrity
Examples - inadequate record keeping, dropping observations based on gut feeling, withholding methodology, changing design due to funding source, etc.
Reason - competition within academia
