Authors:Ori Lev, Arnon Keren Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This article addresses the question of how the responsibilities for addressing the risks of dual use research ought to be divided. We begin by presenting the maximalist claim that proposes that since scientists are well placed to judge the potential for misuse of their studies, they alone are responsible for addressing these risks. Before assessing this position, we consider a claim that rejects the maximalist position, namely that scientists need not consider the possibility that their studies might be misused because the goods of science are so important, they should not spend time on anything but generating valuable knowledge. This claim, we argue, fails, as these goods do not always outweigh the risks of misuse. Given this conclusion we turn to assess two versions of the maximalist claim. The first suggests that when a possibility of misuse arises, scientists ought to adopt the precautionary principle (PP) to discharge their moral responsibilities. We argue that PP is problematic as it does not give much guidance on what scientists should do. An alternative to meeting scientists’ moral responsibilities is through applying a risk-benefit analysis; however, due to epistemic biases and limitations, scientists are prone to make mistakes in their analysis. We thus suggest an alternative approach, in which responsibilities are divided between scientists and agents that can conduct an analysis that is more likely to generate unbiased and comprehensive conclusions on how the risks of dual use research, should be addressed. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-07-31T10:06:46Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241268685
Authors:Andreas Brenneis Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This article argues that due to the difficulty in governing AI, it is essential to develop measures implemented early in the AI research process. The goal of dual use considerations is to create robust strategies that uphold AI’s integrity while protecting societal interests. The challenges of applying dual use frameworks to AI research are examined and dual use and dual use research of concern (DURC) are defined while highlighting the difficulties in balancing the technology’s benefits and risks. AI’s dual use potential is discussed, particularly in areas like NLP and LLMs, and the need for early consideration of dual use risks to ensure ethical and secure development is underscored. In the section on shared responsibilities in AI research and avenues for mitigation strategies the importance of early-stage risk assessments and ethical guidelines to mitigate misuse is emphasized, accentuating self-governance within scientific communities and structured measures like checklists and pre-registration to promote responsible research practices. The final section argues that research ethics committees play a crucial role in evaluating the dual use implications of AI technologies within the research pipeline. The need for tailored ethics review processes is articulated, drawing parallels with medical research ethics committees. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-07-30T10:22:21Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241267782
Authors:Emma Law, Isabel Smith Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the race to find an effective vaccine or treatment saw an ‘extraordinary number’ of clinical trials being conducted. While there were some key success stories, not all trials produced results that informed patient care. There was a significant amount of waste in clinical research during the pandemic which is said to have hampered an evidence-based response. Conducting trials which could have been predicted to fail to answer the research question (e.g. because they are not large enough to provide a definitive result) is not only a waste of resources but also a breach of research participants’ trust and a violation of research ethics.The issues seen in COVID-19 clinical trials are symptomatic of a wider trial design crisis where many trials do not provide informative results. This paper examines the roles of key stakeholders in delivering ethical and informative trials and whether guidance published by ‘The Good Clinical Trials Collaborative’ could be used to align key stakeholder groups and enable a joined-up approach to improve clinical trial design. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-07-30T10:19:12Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241261768
Authors:Helene Lake-Bullock, Jenny Smith, Emily Matuszak, Jeeyoung Chun, Jennifer Hill, Billy Clark, Laura Lodder, Baron Wolf, Lisa Cassis Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The University of Kentucky has required that all researchers and research-eligible individuals complete RCR training every 2 years to ensure there is at least a baseline of RCR training throughout the wider research community. The overall goal is to create a research climate that fosters RCR across the institution for approximately 14,400 researchers and research eligible faculty, staff, and trainees engaged in research or creative work. A systematic data strategy was developed and implemented to identify individuals required to complete the RCR training and included real-time data tracking using data analytic tools and sophisticated data models. The RCR training consists of the completion of online asynchronous modules and an in-person RCR training event where case studies are discussed to apply the learning gained from the online modules and prepare participants to practice ethical decision-making in future real-world problem-solving. A train-the-trainer approach was implemented to conduct the in-person RCR training of all researchers and research eligible individuals. A library of interactive case scenarios was developed for the mandatory in-person RCR training applicable to various disciplines across the institution. A survey of participants on the RCR training provided empirical data from approximately 12% of participants. Over 72% of respondents indicated the training positively impacted their behavior. An initiative of this magnitude and reach is the broadest of its kind in the United States (US) and the article outlines the procedures and experiences in implementing the project. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-07-26T12:48:26Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241264171
Authors:Pamela Andanda, Langelihle Mlotshwa Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Global health emergencies often lead to a proliferation of health-related research and resultant data, which is shared across borders to help control the outbreak of disease and support decision-making regarding public health interventions. However, efforts to share data can be hindered by diverse international ethical and legal frameworks. The frameworks aim to govern coordinated processing, sharing and transfer of health data across borders thus placing burdens on researchers who are willing or obligated to share data. In this paper, we investigate ethical values and legal principles that can be applied to ensure a more streamlined approach in the governance of cross-border health data sharing during global health emergencies. A scoping review approach was used to better understand emerging evidence about issues related to the ethical and legal governance of cross-border health data sharing. We first highlight the challenges of sharing health data across borders. We then discuss how the challenges might be overcome through the application of ethical values and legal principles that have been identified in literature. This is followed by a proposal for possible ways of streamlining the governance of health data sharing from ethical and legal perspectives in a bid to better prepare for future global health emergencies and promote the responsible sharing of health data. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-06-22T07:40:49Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241261907
Authors:Elisabeth Krauel, Andreas Frewer Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) has been well analyzed regarding the life sciences. This article explores the topic of younger fields of medical research and their potential for misuse, especially in the military context. The areas of research considered are artificial intelligence, neurotechnology, and neuroenhancement. Each of these areas have brought forward highly promising new research. However, in light of the current armed conflicts in Europe and in the Middle East, there is a need to consider what the potential harmful consequences of medical research are. Using the example of war, this article demonstrates various instances of how current medical research could be—or is being—misused and discusses various possible solutions to the dual use dilemma. The main finding is that there needs to be a more concise and international effort to prevent the misuse of research. The raising of awareness in the general medical research community for the topic of DURC is one of the simplest steps that should be undertaken in order to ensure the non-maleficence of global research. Additionally, considering the potentially far-reaching consequences of DURC, it is time to consider the introduction of a new intergovernmental agency to monitor research and establish safeguards in order to cover all fields of research. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-06-22T01:10:10Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241262149
Authors:Steven De Peuter, Jana Reck, Steffi Bellekens, Gert Storms Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. More than 800 (co-)authors participated in a large-scale cross-sectional survey on inappropriate attribution of authorship and the use of explicit authorship guidelines in psychological science (response rate 29.6%, predominantly from Europe and North America). Almost half of the respondents had been involved in a study where someone was added as an author who did not contribute substantially (gift authorship) at least a few times. Being involved in a study where someone was not listed as an author when they contributed substantially (ghost authorship) was experienced considerably less frequently. In approximately half of the respondents’ research settings, the use of explicit authorship guidelines is actively encouraged, leading to more frequent discussion of authorship in earlier stages, as well as to the perception of authorship decisions as fairer. Encouraging the use of explicit authorship guidelines is a simple yet effective intervention. Importantly, the American Psychological Association’s (APA) authorship guidelines are considerably more lenient than the widely used criteria of the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-06-16T02:46:58Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241262244
Authors:Martin Hähnel Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The problem of dual use is characterized by a wide range of activities or types of research and technology utilization. In this article, I explore the phenomenon of dual use in several steps to make it accessible for ethical inquiries: first, I examine the phenomenon in more detail; is it a genuine property of technologies and methods, a fundamental problem for research ethics, or a specific precondition for trade-off situations' Second, I show that various factors contribute to a certain good becoming a real dual use good. Third, I propose to develop a three-dimensional classification and evaluation system for dual use risks. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-06-16T02:44:59Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241261466
Authors:Una Jakob, Felicitas Kraemer, Florian Kraus, Thomas Lengauer Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. With regard to the handling of dual use research, the dominant approach in Germany aimed at mitigating dual use risks emphasizes the freedom of research and the strengthening of academic self-regulation. This article presents this approach as one example for a framework for handling security-relevant research, underlines the need for awareness-raising about risks of security-relevant research, and, more generally, highlights some of the dilemmas researchers and legislators face when dealing with security-relevant research. The article furthermore presents the key questions developed by the German Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research to provide guidance for researchers and institutions when they address possible research of concern. It applies these key questions in a case study of a well-publicized experiment in which artificial intelligence and drug discovery technologies were used to determine their dual use potential in identifying highly toxic chemical substances. Moreover, it discusses the utility of the framework applied in Germany and concludes that this approach is practicable. Given the strong emphasis on the researchers’ own responsibility, however, awareness of dual use risks and risk mitigation strategies should be further enhanced and an academic culture of responsible handling of security-relevant research should be promoted. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-06-10T10:13:26Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241261044
Authors:Veronika Batzdorfer, Wolfgang Zenk-Möltgen, Laura Young, Alexia Katsanidou, Johannes Breuer, Libby Bishop Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Balancing speed and quality during crises pose challenges for ensuring the value and utility of data in social science research. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular underscores the need for high-quality data and rapid dissemination. Given the importance of behavioural measures and compliance with measures to contain the pandemic, social science research has played a key role in policymaking during this global crisis. This study addresses two key research questions: How FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) are social science data on the COVID-19 pandemic' Which study features are related to the level of FAIRness scores of datasets'We assess the FAIRness of n = 1131 articles, retrieved through a keyword search in the Web of Science database, employing both automated and manual coding methods. Our study inclusion criteria encompass empirical studies on the COVID-19 pandemic published between 2019 and 2023 with a social science focus and explicit reference to the underlying dataset(s). Our analysis of n = 45 datasets reveals substantial differences in FAIRness for different types of research on the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall FAIRness of data is acceptable, although particularly Reusability scores fall short, in both the manual and the automatic assessment. Further, articles explicitly linked to the Social Science concept in the OpenAlex database exhibit a higher mean overall FAIRness value. Based on these results, we derive recommendations for balancing ethical obligations and the potential tradeoff between speed and data (sharing) quality in social-scientific crisis research. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-06-05T09:07:17Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241257575
Authors:Alice Cavolo, Daniel Pizzolato Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Artificial placentas (APs) are technologies that mimic the human placenta to treat extremely preterm infants. Being an invasive and risky technology, it will raise important ethical questions for human trials. Hence, in this Topic Piece we provide a blueprint of further issues to investigate. First, counselling will have the double role of providing trial information as well as (non) treatment counselling. This requires extra training and the development of ad hoc decision aids to support counselling and parents’ decision-making. Second, more stakeholder involvement is needed. Direct stakeholders, such as parents, clinicians, and researchers, can help develop the decision aids and provide insight on potentially overlooked issues. Society should also be involved to determine whether AP trials and implementation should be subsidized, and the ethical implications of not subsidizing. Third, a proper cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to determine the exact cost of the technology. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-06-04T07:38:22Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241259127
Authors:Lan Thi Nguyen, Kulthida Tuamsuk Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Scientific integrity is defined as the condition that occurs when individuals adhere to accepted standards, professional values, and practices of the relevant scientific community. This study aims to investigate the influential factors on the scientific integrity in scholarly publishing of researchers in Thailand. The questionnaire was delivered to a sample size of 398 top researchers who had high citations and h-index recorded in the Scopus database during the past 5 years, 316 responses were returned. The findings confirm that there are five factors that affect scientific integrity in scholarly publishing: university/faculty requirements/policies, university support, aspects of publishing, publisher aspects, and researcher-related factors. It is evident that establishing a process and criteria for authorship agreement and verification, as well as dedicating offices or units within the university to address research integrity concerns and provide support to researchers, exhibit the highest factor loading values. The findings ensure that scientific integrity stands out as a top priority for researchers linked with prominent research universities in Thailand. To tackle this challenge, it is recommended for the universities to prioritize initiatives aimed at enhancing researchers’ ethical awareness and nurturing scientific integrity. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-05-31T10:19:10Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241257445
Authors:Roza Sagitova, Zarena Syrgak kyzy, Lynne Parmenter Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This paper addresses the issue of how local and global norms and requirements are negotiated in the early stages of development of Social Science research ethics policy in a Global South context. A review of relevant literature followed by analysis of relevant national and institutional policies highlights both tensions and creative potential for ongoing research ethics initiatives. It was found that safety, trust and confidentiality issues are common problems reported by social science researchers in Kyrgyzstan. National level documents do not directly address these ethical research issues, but the need for international research ethics principles is recognized. A limited number of institutional policies address research ethics issues, with the majority of relevant documents being codes of conduct focused on virtue ethics. The paper argues that this analysis of the current situation in Kyrgyzstan is likely to be of relevance to many countries, where those responsible for governance of research at all levels are grappling with the tensions of navigating research ethics in ways that are meaningful in local contexts while being congruent with Global North ethics requirements of funders and publishers. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-05-30T05:10:13Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241251637
Authors:Kelly Laas, Christine Z Miller, Eric M Brey, Elisabeth Hildt Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Student researchers encounter ethical issues daily, but little is known about their unique perspectives. This article presents the results of 30 qualitative semi-structured interviews exploring students’ views and experiences around ethical issues in research groups. During the interviews, students were asked to describe challenges and successes they have encountered in their lab, their conception of what counts as an “ethical issue in research,” and how they handle these issues when they arise. Against this background, the article discusses students’ conceptions of ethical issues in research environments, the types of issues students reported facing, how these issues were ultimately resolved, and finally, the factors, internal qualities, and lessons learned that help students thrive in research environments, as well as some of the challenges students face – especially international students. Many of the ethical challenges interviewees discussed focused on interpersonal issues, highlighting the intense collaboration most graduate students have with their colleagues and supervisors. Findings from this study point to the need for targeted training programs for students and faculty supervisors focusing on building mentoring relationships and finding space in the lab where open communication can occur around ethical research practices. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-05-21T05:27:54Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241252431
Authors:Raffaella Ravinetto, Joyce Adhiambo, Joshua Kimani Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Research represents an essential component of the response to infectious disease outbreaks and to other public health emergencies, whether they are localised, of international concern, or global. Research conducted in such contexts also comes with particular ethics challenges, the awareness of which has significantly grown following the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the Zika outbreak in Latin America and the COVID-19 pandemic. These challenges include the need for implementing meaningful community engagement with the researched communities, not just to build unidirectional trust towards the research team, but to achieve a genuine and mutually respectful partnership before, during and after the research. Here, we describe the real-life experience of 10 well-established research clinics in Nairobi, where a successful experience of community engagement linking prevention and care to research was interrupted during the COVID19 pandemic. We contrast this experience with the concept and processes of community engagement as described in selected scientific manuscripts and guidelines, to formulate some conclusions and recommendations. We contend that more action is needed, from research ethics committees and other key-research stakeholders, to align policies and practices with ethics guidance and with evidence-based recommendations from the academic literature, to achieve meaningful community engagement during emergency research, irrespective of the scale and location of an outbreak or public health crisis. Failure to do so, will aggravate the (postcolonial) asymmetries of power in global health and local systems. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-05-17T10:05:33Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241254169
Authors:Mohammad Hosseini, David B Resnik Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Journals and publishers are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to screen submissions for potential misconduct, including plagiarism and data or image manipulation. While using AI can enhance the integrity of published manuscripts, it can also increase the risk of false/unsubstantiated allegations. Ambiguities related to journals’ and publishers’ responsibilities concerning fairness and transparency also raise ethical concerns. In this Topic Piece, we offer the following guidance: (1) All cases of suspected misconduct identified by AI tools should be carefully reviewed by humans to verify accuracy and ensure accountability; (2) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should use only well-tested and reliable tools, remain vigilant concerning forms of misconduct that cannot be detected by these tools, and stay abreast of advancements in technology; (3) Journals/publishers should inform authors about irregularities identified by AI tools and give them a chance to respond before forwarding allegations to their institutions in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines; (4) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should screen all relevant submissions and not just random/purposefully selected submissions; and (5) Journals should inform authors about their definition of misconduct, their use of AI tools to detect misconduct, and their policies and procedures for responding to suspected cases of misconduct. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-05-11T12:25:58Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241254052
Authors:Leanne Cochrane, Orla Drummond, Eliza Jordan Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This article aims to open a discussion on better ethical assurance for non-university research actors drawing on democratic norms. It derives from the author’s experience of a gap in ethical assurance for social science and humanities (SSH) research that takes place outside academia, for example within international organisations, public bodies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and by private entities. Many of these actors commission, conduct or sub-contract research activities involving human participants on a regular basis, an activity that often increases during times of crisis where researchers in both the public and private sphere scramble to generate the new knowledge necessary to respond and prevent further harms. The ethical assurance frameworks for such research, while growing, remain limited. Discussion of research conducted by actors outside of university settings and their ethical assurance frameworks are both subjects under-interrogated within the literature. This paper seeks to open that discussion by presenting this broad non-university research context through the frame of research in crisis settings, where the ethical requirements of ‘do no harm’ and the ‘dual imperative’ possess an even heavier significance in research ethics. Furthermore, the global and diverse nature of crisis settings often gives rise to conversations concerning the positioning of the research actor and the need to empower the research participant. This paper presents an early vision of the non-university research actor and ethical assurance process based on the democratic norms of equality and inclusivity. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-05-08T12:34:37Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241251591
Authors:Tejendra Pherali, Sara Bragg, Catherine Borra, Phil Jones Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The COVID-19 pandemic posed many ethical and practical challenges for academic research. Some of these have been documented, particularly in relation to health research, but less attention has been paid to the dilemmas encountered by educational and social science research. Given that pandemics are predicted to be more frequent, it is vital to understand how to continue crucial research in schools and other learning communities. This article therefore focuses specifically on research ethics in educational and social science during the pandemic of 2020–2022. The research involved interviews and workshops with University College London (UCL) academics, professional staff and graduate students and encompassed those involved in reviewing ethics applications, researchers dealing with ethics in projects that continued despite disruptions caused by COVID-19, and successful research projects specifically designed to study the effects of COVID-19 in various contexts. The article discusses some of the crucial knowledge and practical experiences that were accumulated. The operational and epistemological lessons learned from this particular institution may have wider relevance to research ethics processes in higher education environments where academics and students are grappling with post-COVID-19 ethical dilemmas and inform broader debates about how research institutions can build institutional knowledge to improve practices of ethics review at the times of health emergencies in future. Our evidence points to the significance of inter- and multidisciplinary, collaborative approaches that flatten institutional hierarchies and to the crucial role played by professional staff. In addition, we argue that ethics review processes must be underpinned by critical debates about wider issues of unequal power relationships between research partners, the nature of knowledge production, ownership and utilisation. To enhance equity and epistemic justice in research practices, ethics education should be an ongoing integral part of research ethics within research institutions. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-05-04T08:45:21Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241252414
Authors:Theresa Burgess, Stuart Rennie, Keymanthri Moodley Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. South African research ethics committees (RECs) faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research ethics committees needed to find a balance between careful consideration of scientific validity and ethical merit of protocols, and review with the urgency normally associated with public health emergency research. We aimed to explore the views of South African RECs on their pandemic preparedness and response during COVID-19. We conducted in-depth interviews with 21 participants from RECs that were actively involved in the review of COVID-19 related research, at seven academic institutions across South Africa. Interviews were conducted remotely using an in-depth interview guide that included questions regarding REC preparedness and response to COVID-19. Interviews were conducted until data saturation, and audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and coded. An inductive approach to thematic analysis was used to organise data into themes and sub-themes. This study focused on three main themes: coping during COVID-19, building REC capacity during pandemic times and a consistently cautious approach to mutual recognition of REC reviews. Despite an initial sense of unpreparedness, RECs were able to adapt and maintain careful ethical oversight of both COVID and non-COVID research, and the rigour of REC reviews. Several important lessons for preparedness and response to future pandemics were identified, including heightened awareness of publication, funding and political pressures, the importance of regular training for RECs and researchers, and strategies to enhance moral resilience of REC members. Incremental steps are needed to build trust and authentic partnerships among RECs in inter-pandemic times, to facilitate collaboration during future public health emergencies. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-05-04T08:43:19Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241250274
Authors:Klaus Leisinger, Doris Schroeder Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The COVID-19 pathogen led to a fast expanding pandemic because it proved lethal in certain populations but could be transmitted by persons who appeared healthy. As a result, researchers came under unprecedented time pressure to develop a vaccine. This case study focuses on the first COVID-19 vaccine, which was approved for use in humans, known as Comirnaty, the BioNTech-Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine or Vaccine BNT162b2. With the benefit of hindsight, we show how close collaboration with regulators and trust-based decisions meant that the race for a COVID-19 vaccine was won without purposefully infecting healthy participants with an infectious agent that can cause severe illness or death and for which no rescue therapy had existed. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-04-30T05:24:39Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241251597
Authors:James William Yeates Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Animal behaviour and welfare research are part of a wider endeavour to optimize the health and wellbeing of humans, animals and ecosystems. As such, it is part of the One Health research agenda. This article applies ethical principles described by the One Health High Level Expert Panel to animal behaviour and welfare research. These principles entail that animal behaviour and welfare research should be valued equitably alongside other research in transdisciplinary and multisectoral collaboration. It should include and promote a multiplicity of marginalized voices, including those of animals, and it should apply and describe a harmonious balance between human—animal-environment interactions. Lastly, it should describe how humans need to change behaviour, adopt sustainable solutions and recognize the importance of animal welfare and the integrity of the whole ecosystem. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-04-24T06:23:01Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241236941
Authors:Mari-Liisa Parder, Pieter Gryffroy, Marten Juurik Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The growing importance of researching online activities, such as cyber-deviance and cyber-crime, as well as the use of online tools (e.g. questionnaires, games, and other interactive tools) has created new ethical and legal challenges for researchers, which can be even more complicated when researching adolescents. In this article, we highlight the risks emerging from the current European legal and ethical landscape when researching potentially vulnerable groups, with a special focus on online research. It is not always clear how to differentiate research ethics consent from consent for data processing activities: when can an adolescent independently consent to research, or when is parental consent needed' Additional problems emerge when parents do not consent to research activities, but their adolescent children do. A serious ethical challenge can arise when the parents do not communicate with researchers, but the adolescent wishes to participate, especially when weak parental oversight is coupled with research on sensitive topics. We offer some guidance on what to keep in mind when conducting online research with adolescents and highlight possible ways that these issues can be dealt with in pan-European projects. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-04-20T04:16:35Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241247803
Authors:Xinqu Zhang, Peng Wang Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Unethical research practices are prevalent in China, but little research has focused on the causes of these practices. Drawing on the criminology literature on organisational deviance, as well as the concept of cengceng jiama, which illustrates the increase of pressure in the process of policy implementation within a top-down bureaucratic hierarchy, this article develops an institutional analysis of research misconduct in Chinese universities. It examines both universities and the policy environment of Chinese universities as contexts for research misconduct. Specifically, this article focuses on China’s Double First-Class University Initiative and its impact on elite universities that respond to the policy by generating new incentive structures to promote research quality and productivity as well as granting faculties and departments greater flexibility in terms of setting high promotion criteria concerning research productivity. This generates enormous institutional tensions and strains, encouraging and sometimes even compelling individual researchers who wish to survive to decouple their daily research activities from ethical research norms. This article is written based on empirical data collected from three elite universities as well as a review of policy documents, universities’ internal documents, and news articles. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-04-20T04:12:05Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241247720
Authors:Seliem El-Sayed, Filip Paspalj Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Recital 33 GDPR has often been interpreted as referring to ‘broad consent’. This version of informed consent was intended to allow data subjects to provide their consent for certain areas of research, or parts of research projects, conditional to the research being in line with ‘recognised ethical standards’. In this article, we argue that broad consent is applicable in the emerging field of Computational Social Science (CSS), which lies at the intersection of data science and social science. However, the lack of recognised ethical standards specific to CSS poses a practical barrier to the use of broad consent in this field and other fields that lack recognised ethical standards. Upon examining existing research ethics standards in social science and data science, we argue that they are insufficient for CSS. We further contend that the fragmentation of European Union (EU) law and research ethics sources makes it challenging to establish universally recognised ethical standards for scientific research. As a result, CSS researchers and other researchers in emerging fields that lack recognised ethical standards are left without sufficient guidance on the use of broad consent as provided for in the GDPR. We conclude that responsible EU bodies should provide additional guidance to facilitate the use of broad consent in CSS research. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-04-20T04:08:50Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241247686
Authors:Wei Zhu, Fei Yan, Jianfeng Zhu, Linzi Zhu, Fengyu Liu Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This paper describes a scoping review of China’s academic resource databases, relevant official websites, news reports and public accounts spanning a period from the end of 2019 to the end of 2022, to investigate the challenges in scientific integrity and ethical soundness of research conducted during and immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic in China. By conducting the scoping review with keywords related to the research questions in Chinese, relevant data were extracted and classified into four categories: challenges in research, challenges in ethics review, challenges in publishing academic work, and research ethics guidelines during and after the pandemic. The paper points out that problematic studies and findings increased with the escalation in medical research projects during the pandemic in China. The situation faced by researchers was more difficult than before the pandemic. The mode of informed consent, and ethics review and oversight systems also underwent changes. In addition, Traditional Chinese Medicine as an alternative medical treatment for COVID-19, attracted attention from the research community and became a topic of discussion. We conclude that the various challenges and concerns identified indicate a need for a proper and timely response system be formulated in preparation for possible future occurrences of new pandemics or other critical situations. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-04-09T04:22:07Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241245327
Authors:Göran Lövestam, Susanne Bremer-Hoffmann, Koen Jonkers, Pieter van Nes Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the European Commission’s in-house science and knowledge service, employing a substantial staff of scientists devoted to conducting research to provide independent scientific advice for EU policy. Focussed on various research areas aligned with EU priorities, the JRC excels in delivering scientific evidence for policymaking and has published numerous science-for-policy reports and scientific articles. Drawing on a scientific integrity statement, surveys among JRC’s research staff, and thematic discussions with JRC’s research leaders, the JRC has developed a comprehensive Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics (SIRE) framework, including instruments, procedures, and guidelines to ensure high standards and independence in its research. Key components of the SIRE framework include a Scientific Integrity Officer, an Editorial Review Board, a Research Ethics Board, and guidelines for responsible conduct of research. This article provides an overview of the JRC’s SIRE framework and how it was developed, emphasising the importance of maintaining independence, integrity, and ethics in scientific research that supports EU policy. The article also discusses potential gaps in the framework and where additional efforts may be needed, comparing with the recent U.S. National Science and Technology Council report on Protecting the Integrity of Government Science. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-04-03T04:46:12Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241243001
Authors:Nicole S Kuhn, Ethan J Kuhn, Michael (daniseten) Vendiola, Clarita Lefthand-Begay Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Researchers seeking to engage in projects related to Tribal communities and their citizens, lands, and non-human relatives are responsible for understanding and abiding by each Tribal nation’s research laws and review processes. Few studies, however, have described the many diverse forms of Tribal research review systems across the United States (US). This study provides one of the most comprehensive examinations of research review processes administered by Tribal Research Review Boards (TRRBs) in the US. Through a systematic analysis, we consider TRRBs’ online presence, online documentation, and themes across documents, for five entity types: Tribal nations and Tribal consortiums, Tribal colleges and universities, Tribal health organizations, Indian Health Services, and other Tribal organizations. Results include an assessment of online presence for 98 potential TRRBs, identification of 118 publicly available online documents, and analysis of 41 themes across four document types: Tribal research codes and TRRBs’ guidelines, applications, and post-approval documents. Altogether, this research provides a macro-level analysis of the most common types of TRRBs in the US in an effort to increase researchers’ understanding of these important processes as they prepare to ethically engage Tribal communities in research. These results aim to empower Tribal decision makers as they align their TRRBs’ online visibility and documentation with community priorities and strengthen their protections for the rights and wellbeing of their citizens and community. Ultimately, by expanding our knowledge of TRRBs across the US, this contribution seeks to uphold Tribal sovereignty in research and promote ethical approaches to research with Indigenous communities. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-04-01T04:29:21Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241240030
Authors:Maria Cristina Murano Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Over the last three quarters of a century, international guidelines and regulations have undergone significant changes in how children are problematised as participants in biomedical research. While early guidelines enacted children as vulnerable subjects with diminished autonomy and in need of special protection, beginning in the early 2000s, international regulatory frameworks defined the paediatric population as vulnerable due to unaddressed public health needs. More recently, ethical recommendations have promoted the active engagement of minors as research partners. In this paper, I adopt a post-structuralist approach to policy analysis to examine deep-seated assumptions and presuppositions underlying the changes in the problematisation of children as biomedical research participants over time. While biomedical research ethics focuses on the autonomy and vulnerability of minors, ethical guidelines are situated in specific sociocultural contexts, shaped, among other things, by contingent public health needs and changing conceptions of the value of research and science for society. In the process, I demonstrate the challenge of moving away from an approach that in taking adults as the model overshadows the complexity of children’s lived experiences as well as their personal, cultural, and social lives. The lack of acknowledgement of this complexity makes children vulnerable to epistemic injustice, which is particularly crucial to address in public involvement initiatives. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-30T04:01:16Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241242135
Authors:Melanie Arnold, Stacie Merritt, Kathryn Mears, Anna Bryan, Jane Bryce Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This article describes our efforts to screen and enrol clinical trial participants conscientiously in the COVID-19 pandemic setting. We present the standard screening and enrolment process prior to, and our process of adapting to, the pandemic. Our goal was to develop a way to screen and enrol people for clinical trials that was both equitable and effective. In addition, we outline the steps our research department took to ensure that ethical, clinical and logistical factors were considered when matching a patient to a clinical trial. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-29T04:17:15Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241241409
Authors:Maya Peled-Raz, Yael Efron, Shay S Tzafrir, Israel (Issi) Doron, Guy Enosh Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Although well established in developed countries, Ethics review boards in the academia, and specifically for social and behavioral sciences (SBS) research, is a relatively new, and still a controversy inducing endeavor. This study explores the establishment and functioning of ERBs in Israeli academia, serving as a case study for the challenges and progress made in ensuring ethical research practices in non-medical related spheres. A purposeful sample of 46 participants was selected, comprising ERB current or past members and SBS researchers, who each interacted extensively with ERB’s evaluation processes. The participants came from all eight research universities of Israel, as well as seven large public and private academic colleges. Open, semi structured In-depth interviews were conducted in order to facilitate a critical reflective stance among the various participants, exploring their experiences, behaviors and the meanings they assign to ERB processes. Our research revealed two major themes. The first is the developmental trajectories in the construction processes of ERBs in Israel, comprised of the following stages: Initiation, expansion, opposition, and acceptance and assimilation. The second was a typology of participation throughout the ERBs’ construction process. Inspired by Merton’s strain theory, this typology includes conformists, ritualists, ideologists, control-freaks, and insurgents. The findings expose a unique perspective into the initiation, establishment, and development of ERBs, which can shed light on the role of ERBs in general, as well as point out how resistance to ERBs, as well as the different reasons for championing them, affected not only ERBs form and their legitimacy, but also their interaction with researchers. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-28T10:38:45Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241240594
Authors:Kadri Simm, Mari-Liisa Parder, Anu Tammeleht, Kadri Lees Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. While empirical studies of research ethics and integrity are increasingly common, few have aimed at national scope, and even fewer at current results from Central and Eastern Europe. This article introduces the results of the first national research integrity survey in Estonia, which included all research-performing organisations in Estonia, was inclusive of all disciplines and all levels of experience. A web-based survey was developed and carried out in Estonia with a call sent to all accredited Estonian research institutions. The results indicate that the vast majority (89%) of respondents consider research ethics and integrity issues important and view falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFPs) as the most severe forms of misconduct. Self-reporting of FFPs is generally comparable to levels published in other studies (6.2%). Gift authorship (41%) and hampering the work of a colleague (32%) were problematic practices most noticed among colleagues. At the same time, two of the noticed questionable research practices (QRPs) – salami-slicing and misuse of research funding – were seen as less severe, hinting at the existence of counter-norms that career advancement rules and structural factors like funding policies may encourage. The availability of research ethics and integrity guidelines was considered good. Ethical aspects of studying potentially stigmatising data in a very small research community are discussed in the article and results are analysed through counter-norms and normative dissonance frames. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-21T06:23:31Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241239791
Authors:Mario Kropf Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Biomedical research, on the one hand, contributes to important goals from generation of knowledge about the human body to the development and testing of therapeutics of all kinds. On the other hand, it can produce serious and sometimes unforeseeable consequences. In the ethical analysis of these two aspects of biomedical research, two important argumentative strategies play a major role. First, slippery slope arguments are used to warn of potential risks and to highlight knowledge-based limitations. Second, a dual-use problem describes the challenge that already established techniques can be used for both morally wrong and morally right purposes. These two argumentative strategies appear to share several similarities, which will be investigated in this article. For this purpose, the article will first provide clear working definitions for both types of argument. This lays the foundation for the further ethical analysis. In a second step, and in order to investigate the similarities and differences of the argumentative strategies with an example from current ethical debates, CRISPR-Cas9, a currently very promising tool of genome editing, will be examined. The extent to which the possible applications of this genome editing tool can be addressed by slippery slope arguments or the dual use problem will be investigated. For this purpose, selected studies involving the use of CRISPR-Cas9 will be examined. Based on this two-step, analytic and example-based comparison of slippery-slope argumentation and dual-use considerations, the article will detail the ethically relevant difference between the two argumentative strategies and at the same time contribute to the ongoing ethical debate about CRISPR-Cas9. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-18T05:48:39Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241240587
Authors:Olivier Leclerc, Nicolas Klausser Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Reporting and investigating research misconduct can lead to disciplinary proceedings being initiated, and ultimately to disciplinary sanctions being imposed on convicted scientists. The conversion of research misconduct findings into disciplinary sanctions is poorly understood. This article analyses all the disciplinary decisions handed down on appeal by the Conseil national de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche (CNESER) between 1991 and 2023, concerning breaches of research integrity by academics and doctoral students (n = 333). Three findings are highlighted. Firstly, the article describes how the CNESER sanctioned research misconduct even before the notion of research integrity became part of French law, by monitoring scientists’ compliance with “deontological rules”. Secondly, we show that assessing disciplinary fault involves evaluating a much broader set of circumstances than the mere existence of research misconduct, which can explain why the latter do not result in disciplinary sanctions or lighter sanctions. Thirdly, the research highlights situations where research misconduct is intertwined with other allegations, blurring the relative importance of these motives in the awarding of disciplinary sanctions. The article concludes with a call for greater accessibility to the disciplinary decisions handed down by universities in the first instance, as a key next step in gaining a better understanding of the disciplinary response to research misconduct. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-16T07:10:10Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241240241
Authors:Giulia Inguaggiato, Claudia Pallise Perello, Petra Verdonk, Linda Schoonmade, Pamela Andanda, Mariette van den Hoven, Natalie Evans Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic globally disrupted lives and contributed to the exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities. Women in research were also affected. The prominent role that women played in professional and personal care duties had a detrimental effect on their research outputs, potentially hindering their career progression. Moreover, the challenges faced by women academics during the pandemic, including job loss, increased mental health issues, and the intersection of gender with other socio-demographic traits exacerbated existing gender disparities within academia. By systematically scoping the qualitative literature on the experiences of women researchers during the pandemic, this study sought to explore how women experienced and reacted to the challenges generated by the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative meta synthesis of the included studies revealed three themes: gendered professional expectations, colliding identities and coping strategies. These themes show how gendered roles such as teaching and professional care work, associated with the hierarchical and gendered division of tasks both at home and in the workplace, made women feel unsupported and alienated as relevant agents in the academic context. The study reveals the importance of pastoral care, teaching and service work as the essential backbone of the academic infrastructure, especially in times of crises. It also exposes how productivity-focused researcher assessment criteria, rewarding mainly individual results and unrewarding of care and service work, can be viewed as perpetuating structural inequalities based on gender, parenting situations, contractual situations and background. In conclusion, this study exposes the need to proactively address the gendered practices and implicit biases which reproduce inequalities within academia and highlights how paying attention to the experiences and needs of women researchers is essential for improving the resilience and crises preparedness of academic the system. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-08T10:17:20Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241231268
Authors:Cathrine Moe, Lisbeth Uhrenfeldt, Ingjerd Gåre Kymre Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The increasing need for innovative research driven by rapid global changes gives doctoral supervisors of early-stage researchers a significant role in facilitating the ethical conduct of qualitative research. In the context of European Commission funding, the demands of research ethics and integrity place a tremendous responsibility on the supervisors of early-stage researchers involved in cross-national projects. This document study seeks to illuminate the role of the supervisors in facilitating research ethics in these projects. Specifically, we describe and discuss the supervisor role associated with five approaches to doctoral supervision of qualitative research, namely those described as ‘Functional’, ‘Enculturation’, ‘Critical thinking’, ‘Emancipation’ and ‘Developing a quality relationship’. The main challenges for supervisors of cross-national research projects are the cultural and linguistic mobilisation of ethical principles in qualitative research processes and the management of the future use of open data. The results from this study have implications for planning and conducting cross-national studies within research involving human participants. These results can guide supervisors in the codification and mobilisation of ethical qualitative research in practice. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-06T01:05:32Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241232816
Authors:Kimberley Serpico Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. In 1974, the United States Congress asked a question prompting a national conversation about ethics: which ethical principles should govern research involving human participants' To embark on an answer, Congress passed the National Research Act, and charged this task to the newly established National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Commission’s mandate was modest however, the results were anything but. The outcome was The Belmont Report: a trio of principles - respect for persons, beneficence, and justice - serving as an ethical compass for scientists, researchers, and institutional review boards (IRBs). Almost 50 years later, the utility, legacy, and ingenuity of The Belmont Report continues to be both admired and challenged. Critics argue that Belmont is not fit for the 21st century, while supporters praise Belmont for its enduring wisdom. The goal of this paper is to equip IRB practitioners with the tools necessary to maximally interpret The Belmont Report and meaningfully engage in ethical analysis that reconsiders outmoded legacy thinking and fixed decision-making. Through historical and contextual reflection, this paper describes how IRB practitioners can contemporize review of ethical human research using their moral imagination – a skill found at the intersection of creativity, deliberation, and empathy. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-04T08:21:37Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241235772
Authors:Robin Coningham, Nick Lewer, Kosh Prasad Acharya, Kai Weise, Ram Bahadhur Kunwar, Anie Joshi, Sandhya Parajuli Khanal Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The earthquakes which struck Nepal’s capital in 2015 were humanitarian disasters. Not only did they inflict tragic loss of life and livelihoods, they also destroyed parts of the Kathmandu Valley’s unique UNESCO World Heritage site. These monuments were not just ornate structures but living monuments playing central roles in the daily lives of thousands, representing portals where the heavens touch earth and people commune with guiding deities. Their rehabilitation was also of economic importance as they represent a major source of tourist income and employment. Unfortunately, the social and political desire for rapid reconstruction resulted in the swift removal of many traditionally constructed foundations and their replacement with modern materials without assessments of whether they contributed towards the collapse of individual monuments. These actions, combined with the wholesale removal, mixing and dumping of modern and historic debris, contributed to a second, equally destructive, cultural catastrophe – irreversible damage to Kathmandu’s Medieval fabric, in a process which frequently excluded local communities and custodians. This case study draws from our collective reflections and lessons learned from our attempts to enable equitable and ethical research partnerships between UK and Nepali colleagues as well as local communities in the debris of the Kasthamandap, Kathmandu’s eponymous monument. After briefly describing the potential of mobilising archaeologists in post-disaster contexts and outlining the challenges of undertaking research in such a setting, our case study utilises the TRUST Code to assess the character and success of our multidisciplinary collaboration in a time of crises. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-03-04T08:19:58Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241234502
Authors:Hugh Davies, Simon E Kolstoe, Anthony Lockett Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Valid consent requires the potential research participant understands the information provided. We examined current practice in 50 proposed Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products to determine how this understanding is checked. The majority of the proposals (n = 44) indicated confirmation of understanding would take place during an interactive conversation between the researcher and potential participant, containing questions to assess and establish understanding. Yet up until now, research design and review have not focussed upon this, concentrating more on written material. We propose ways this interactive conversation can be documented, and the process of checking understanding improved. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-02-24T10:26:34Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241235910
Authors:Carly Seedall, Lisa Tambornino Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This scoping review maps research ethics and integrity challenges and best practices encountered by research actors in the DACH countries (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland), including researchers, funders, publishers, research ethics committees, and policymakers, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic brought research and, in turn, research ethics and integrity, into public focus. This review identified challenges related to changing research environments, diversity in research, publication and dissemination trends, scientific literacy and trust in science, recruitment, research redundancy and study termination, placebo and human challenge studies, data management, and informed consent. These challenges are linked to two crucial factors: first, actors in the DACH research ecosystem lacked a sound knowledge base to assess the risks and benefits of research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, researchers in the DACH region faced pressure from policymakers, funders, and the public to generate relevant, timely, and consistent findings to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, this review highlights best practices to mitigate the effects of future crises on research ethics and integrity, including enhanced cooperation among actors, continuous ethics assessments, and support for public scientific literacy. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-02-19T06:08:10Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161241229207
Authors:Charles Weijer Abstract: Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The COVID-19 pandemic touched off an unprecedented search for vaccines and treatments. Without question, the development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 was an enormous scientific accomplishment. Further, the RECOVERY and Solidarity trials identified effective treatments for COVID-19. But all was not success. The urgent need for COVID-19 prevention and treatment fueled an embrace of risks—to research participants and to the reliability of the science itself—as allegedly necessary costs to speed scientific progress. Scientists and (even) ethicists supported overturning longstanding norms protecting healthy volunteers in human challenge trials to speed vaccine development, but these trials led to no vaccines. Physicians, with the approval of research ethics committees, designed hundreds of unblinded, single-center clinical trials at high risk of bias to speed the identification of new treatments. But these clinical trials led to no treatments. The lesson for future pandemics is that the acceptance of greater risks to participants or science does not reliably lead to progress. We are better served by science that upholds the highest ethical and methodological standards. Citation: Research Ethics PubDate: 2024-01-04T05:13:22Z DOI: 10.1177/17470161231223594
Open Access journal
