 | You can helpexpand this article with text translated fromthe corresponding article in Portuguese. (January 2024)Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
| Part ofa series on |
| Research |
|---|
 |
Research strategy |
| Philosophy portal |
Research ethics is a discipline within the study ofapplied ethics. Its scope ranges from generalscientific integrity andmisconduct to the treatment of human and animal subjects. Thesocial responsibilities of scientists and researchers are not traditionally included and are less well defined.[1]
The discipline is most developed inmedical research. Beyond the issues of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism that arise in every scientific field,research design inhuman subject research andanimal testing are the areas that raise ethical questions most often.
Thelist of historic cases includes many large-scale violations and crimes against humanity such asNazi human experimentation and theTuskegee syphilis experiment which led to international codes of research ethics. No approach has been universally accepted,[2][3][4] but typically cited codes are the 1947Nuremberg Code, the 1964Declaration of Helsinki, and the 1978Belmont Report.
Today,research ethics committees, such as those of theUS,UK, andEU, govern and oversee the responsible conduct of research. One major goal being to reducequestionable research practices.
Research in other fields such associal sciences,information technology,biotechnology, orengineering may generate ethical concerns.[2][3][5][6][7][8]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(March 2024) |
Thelist of historic cases includes many large scale violations and crimes against humanity such asNazi human experimentation and theTuskegee syphilis experiment which led to international codes of research ethics.[2][3][4]Medical ethics developed out of centuries of general malpractice and science motivated only by results. Medical ethics in turn led to today's more broad understanding inbioethics.[9]
Research integrity orscientific integrity is an aspect of research ethics that deals withbest practice or rules of professional practice ofscientists.
First introduced in the 19th century byCharles Babbage, the concept of research integrity came to the fore in the late 1970s. A series of publicized scandals in theUnited States led to heightened debate on the ethical norms of sciences and the limitations of the self-regulation processes implemented by scientific communities and institutions. Formalized definitions ofscientific misconduct, andcodes of conduct, became the main policy response after 1990. In the 21st century, codes of conduct orethics codes for research integrity are widespread. Along with codes of conduct at institutional and national levels, major international texts include theEuropean Charter for Researchers (2005), the Singapore statement on research integrity (2010), the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2011 & 2017) and the Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers (2020).
Scientific literature on research integrity falls mostly into two categories: first, mapping of the definitions and categories, especially in regard to scientific misconduct, and second, empirical surveys of the attitudes and practices of scientists.[10] Following the development of codes of conduct, taxonomies of non-ethical uses have been significantly expanded, beyond the long-established forms of scientific fraud (plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of results). Definitions of "questionable research practices" and the debate overreproducibility also target a grey area of dubious scientific results, which may not be the outcome of voluntary manipulations.
The concrete impact of codes of conduct and other measures put in place to ensure research integrity remain uncertain. Several case studies have highlighted that while the principles of typical codes of conduct adhere to common scientific ideals, they are seen as remote from actual work practices and their efficiency is criticized.
After 2010, debates on research integrity have been increasingly linked toopen science. International codes of conduct and national legislation on research integrity have officially endorsed open sharing of scientific output (publications, data, and code used to perform statistical analyses on the data[clarification needed]) as ways to limit questionable research practices and to enhance reproducibility. Having both the data and the actual code enables others to reproduce the results for themselves (or to uncover problems in the analyses when trying to do so). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2023 states, for example, the principles that, "Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with theFAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable)for data management" and that "Researchers, research institutions, and organisations are transparent about how to access and gain permission to use data,
metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials".[11] References to open science have incidentally opened up the debate over scientific integrity beyond academic communities, as it increasingly concerns a wider audience of scientific readers.
Research ethics forHuman subject research andAnimal testing derives, historically, fromMedical ethics and, in modern times, from the much more broad field ofBioethics.
Medical ethics is an applied branch ofethics which analyzes the practice of clinicalmedicine and related scientific research.[12] Medical ethics is based on a set of values that professionals can refer to in the case of any confusion or conflict. These values include the respect forautonomy,non-maleficence,beneficence, andjustice.[13] Such tenets may allow doctors, care providers, and families to create a treatment plan and work towards the same common goal.[14] These four values are not ranked in order of importance or relevance and they all encompass values pertaining to medical ethics.[15] However, a conflict may arise leading to the need for hierarchy in an ethical system, such that some moral elements overrule others with the purpose of applying the best moral judgement to a difficult medical situation.[16] Medical ethics is particularly relevant in decisions regardinginvoluntary treatment andinvoluntary commitment.
There are several codes of conduct.The Hippocratic Oath discusses basic principles for medical professionals.[16] This document dates back to the fifth century BCE.[17] BothThe Declaration of Helsinki (1964) andThe Nuremberg Code (1947) are two well-known and well respected documents contributing to medical ethics. Other important markings in the history of medical ethics includeRoe v. Wade[why?] in 1973 and the development ofhemodialysis in the 1960s. Withhemodialysis now available, but a limited number of dialysis machines to treat patients, an ethical question arose on which patients to treat and which ones not to treat, and which factors to use in making such a decision.[18] More recently, new techniques forgene editing aiming at treating, preventing, and curing diseases utilizing gene editing, are raising important moral questions about their applications in medicine and treatments as well as societal impacts on future generations.[19][20]
As this field continues to develop and change throughout history, the focus remains on fair, balanced, and moral thinking across all cultural and religious backgrounds around the world.[21][22] The field of medical ethics encompasses both practical application in clinical settings and scholarly work inphilosophy,history, andsociology.
Medical ethics encompasses beneficence, autonomy, and justice as they relate to conflicts such as euthanasia, patient confidentiality, informed consent, and conflicts of interest in healthcare.[23][24][25] In addition, medical ethics and culture are interconnected as different cultures implement ethical values differently, sometimes placing more emphasis on family values and downplaying the importance of autonomy. This leads to an increasing need forculturally sensitive physicians and ethical committees in hospitals and other healthcare settings.[21][22][26]Participants in aclinical trial inclinical research have rights which they expect to be honored, including:[27]
Study participants are entitled to some degree of autonomy in deciding their participation. One measure for safeguarding this right is the use ofinformed consent for clinical research.[28] Researchers refer to populations with limited autonomy as "vulnerable populations"; these are subjects who may not be able to fairly decide for themselves whether to participate. Examples of vulnerable populations includeincarcerated persons, children, prisoners, soldiers, people under detention, migrants, persons exhibitinginsanity or any other condition that precludes their autonomy, and to a lesser extent, any population for which there is reason to believe that the research study could seem particularly or unfairly persuasive or misleading.Ethical problems particularly encumber using children in clinical trials.
| This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(March 2024) |
Consequences for the environment, for society and for future generations must be considered.
In Canada, mandatory research ethics training is required for students, professors and others who work in research.[31][32] The US first legislatedinstitutional review boards procedures in the 1974National Research Act.
Published inSocial Sciences & Medicine (2009) several authors suggested that research ethics in a medical context is dominated byprinciplism.[33]