research on ethical issues

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Common Ethical Issues In Research And Publication

Ng chirk jenn.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Dr Ng Chirk Jenn, Senior lecturer, Department of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Tel: 03-79492306, Email: [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Collection date 2006.

INTRODUCTION

Research is the pillar of knowledge, and it constitutes an integral part of progress. In the fast-expanding field of biomedical research, this has improved the quality and quantity of life. Historically, medical doctors have been in the privileged position to carry out research, especially in clinical research which involves people. They are able to control “life and death” of patients and have free access to their confidential information. Moreover, medical researchers have also enjoyed immunity from accountability due to high public regard for science and medicine. This has resulted in some researchers conducting unethical researches. For instance, in World War II, medical doctors had conducted unethical experiments on human in the name of science, resulting in harm and even death in some cases. 1 More recently, the involvement of pharmaceutical industry in clinical trials have raised issues about how to safeguard patient’s care and to ensure the published research findings are objective. 2

In the light of these ethical controversies, the Declaration of Helsinki was established to inform biomedical researchers the principles of clinical research. 3 This declaration highlighted a tripartite guidelines for good clinical practice which include respect for the dignity of the person; research should not override the health, well-being and care of subjects; principles of justice. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was also founded in 1997 to address the breaches of research and publication ethics. 4

How do we apply all these principles in our daily conduct of research? This paper will discuss different ethical issues in research, including study design and ethical approval, data analysis, authorship, conflict of interest and redundant publication and plagiarism. I have also included two case scenarios in this paper to illustrate common ethical issues in research and publication.

ETHICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH

1. study design and ethics approval.

According to COPE, “good research should be well adjusted, well-planned, appropriately designed, and ethically approved. To conduct research to a lower standard may constitute misconduct.” 3 This may appear to be a stringent criterion, but it highlights the basic requirement of a researcher is to conduct a research responsibly. To achieve this, a research protocol should be developed and adhered to. It must be carefully agreed to by all contributors and collaborators, and the precise roles of each team member should be spelled out early, including matters of authorship and publications. Research should seek to answer specific questions, rather than just collect data.

It is essential to obtain approval from the Institutional Review Board, or Ethics Committee, of the respective organisations for studies involving people, medical records, and anonymised human tissues. The research proposal should discuss potential ethical issues pertaining to the research. The researchers should pay special attention to vulnerable subjects to avoid breech of ethical codes (e.g. children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally challenged, educationally and economically disadvantaged). Patient information sheet should be given to the subjects during recruitment, detailing the objectives, procedures, potential benefits and harms, as well as rights to refuse participation in the research. Consent should be explained and obtained from the subjects or guardians, and steps should be taken to ensure confidentiality of information provided by the subjects.

2. Data analysis

It is the responsibility of the researcher to analyse the data appropriately. Although inappropriate analysis does not necessarily amount to misconduct, intentional omission of result may cause misinterpretation and mislead the readers. Fabrication and falsification of data do constitute misconduct. For example, in a clinical trial, if a drug is found to be ineffective, this study should be reported. There is a tendency for the researchers to under-report negative research findings, 5 and this is partly contributed by pressure from the pharmaceutical industry which funds the clinical trial.

To ensure appropriate data analysis, all sources and methods used to obtain and analyse data should be fully disclosed. Failure to do so may lead the readers to misinterpret the results without considering possibility of the study being underpowered. The discussion section of a paper should mention any issues of bias, and explain how they have been dealt with in the design and interpretation of the study.

3. Authorship

There is no universally agreed definition of authorship. 6 It is generally agreed that an author should have made substantial contribution to the intellectual content, including conceptualising and designing the study; acquiring, analysing and interpreting the data. The author should also take responsibility to certify that the manuscript represents valid work and take public responsibility for the work. Finally, an author is usually involved in drafting or revising the manuscript, as well as approving the submitted manuscript. Data collection, editing of grammar and language, and other routine works by itself, do not deserve an authorship.

It is crucial to decide early on in the planning of a research who will be credited as authors, as contributors, and who will be acknowledged. It is also advisable to read carefully the “Advice to Authors” of the target journal which may serve as a guide to the issue of authorship.

4. Conflicts of interest

This happens when researchers have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published. These conflicts include personal, commercial, political, academic or financial interest. Financial interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lecture or travel, consultancies and company support for staff. This issue is especially pertinent in biomedical research where a substantial number of clinical trials are funded by pharmaceutical company.

Such interests, where relevant, should be discussed in the early stage of research. The researchers need to take extra effort to ensure that their conflicts of interest do not influence the methodology and outcome of the research. It would be useful to consult an independent researcher, or Ethics Committee, on this issue if in doubt. When publishing, these conflicts of interest should be declared to editors, and readers will judge for themselves whether the research findings are trustworthy.

5. Redundant publication and plagiarism

Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions. However, previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings does not preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of submission. This is also known as self-plagiarism. In the increasing competitive environment where appointments, promotions and grant applications are strongly influenced by publication record, researchers are under intense pressure to publish, and a growing minority is seeking to bump up their CV through dishonest means. 7

On the other hand, plagiarism ranges from unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under “new” authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in different language.

Therefore, it is important to disclose all sources of information, and if large amount of other people’s written or illustrative materials is to be used, permission must be sought.

It is the duty of the researcher to ensure that research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner from planning to publication. Researchers and authors should familiarise themselves with these principles and follows them strictly. Any potential ethical issues in research and publication should be discussed openly within the research team. If in doubt, it is advisable to consult the respective institutional review board (IRB) for their expert opinions.

Case Scenario 1:

“A community survey on prevalence of domestic violence among secondary school students.”

Who should we obtain the consent? Students, parents, teachers or Ministry of Education?

To conduct this study, we need to seek approval from the Ministry of Education and permission from the school principal. However, consent should be taken from parents, who are the legal guardians of the students.

If the results show that 50% of the students have ever been abused, should I report them to the police?

These ethical issues should be discussed at the proposal stage, and the participants/guardians should be informed about the decision to report to the police while taking the consent. This will potentially affect the response rate; but this is also the responsibility of the researcher to protect the participants and their families.

I have decided to publish it. Can I send an abstract for presentation as part of the conference proceedings, and later submit similar abstract with the full text for publication. Is that redundant publication?

Yes, you can. However, you need to declare to the publisher that you have presented the paper in the conference. Redundant publication happens when an author has submitted two papers with similar objective, methodology and results, without cross referencing.

Can I submit the same paper in a different language?

Yes, you can. However, you have to declare to the publisher that you have published an identical paper in a different language.

Case Scenario 2:

“Does HRT improve vasomotor symptoms among menopausal women in a Malaysian primary care clinic?”

Some people say it is “unethical” to do this study because it has been proven in many studies. But no such research has ever been done locally!

HRT has been proven to be effective in relieving vasomotor symptoms in many well-designed studies. It is inappropriate for the researcher to repeat an established therapy which may potentially cause harm to them (e.g. deep vein thrombosis and breast cancer). However, it is appropriate to repeat research if the researchers feel that it may yield a different outcome in the local setting based on a firm theoretical basis.

Do we still need to obtain ethics approval if it is part of daily clinical practice?

Yes, even though it is part of our normal practice, all research involving human subjects, especially when it involves drugs, should be subjected to ethics approval. (E.g. “How did the researchers ensure that they explain to the patients fully about the potential harm of HRT?”)

I’m worried that if I start explaining to the participants about the possibility of Ca breast, they won’t want to participate. How can I “play down” this possible side effect?

As mentioned earlier, it is the duty of the researcher to ensure that the participant understands the benefits and risks of the treatment. The information should be conveyed in an objectively manner in the patient information sheet. Any queries from the patient should be answered truthfully, and it is the patient’s rights to refuse to participate in the research.

While writing the introduction and discussion of my paper/thesis, I copied sentences from some papers. But I referred to them in my reference. Is that acceptable?

It is acceptable to quote sentences from a paper as long as they are duly referenced.

• 1. Human D, Fluss SS. World Medical Association; 2001. The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: historical and contemporary perspectives. [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality. BMJ. 2003;326:1167–70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. World Medical association. 2004. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2005. Guidelines on good publication and the Code of Conduct. [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med. 2005;2:100–2. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Medical Research Council. London: MRC; 1998. MRC Guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trials. [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Giles J. Taking on the cheats. Nature. 2005;435:258–9. doi: 10.1038/435258a. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• PDF (104.6 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Nih clinical research trials and you, guiding principles for ethical research.

Pursuing Potential Research Participants Protections

“When people are invited to participate in research, there is a strong belief that it should be their choice based on their understanding of what the study is about, and what the risks and benefits of the study are,” said Dr. Christine Grady, chief of the NIH Clinical Center Department of Bioethics, to Clinical Center Radio in a podcast.

Clinical research advances the understanding of science and promotes human health. However, it is important to remember the individuals who volunteer to participate in research. There are precautions researchers can take – in the planning, implementation and follow-up of studies – to protect these participants in research. Ethical guidelines are established for clinical research to protect patient volunteers and to preserve the integrity of the science.

NIH Clinical Center researchers published seven main principles to guide the conduct of ethical research:

Social and clinical value

Scientific validity, fair subject selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent.

• Respect for potential and enrolled subjects

Every research study is designed to answer a specific question. The answer should be important enough to justify asking people to accept some risk or inconvenience for others. In other words, answers to the research question should contribute to scientific understanding of health or improve our ways of preventing, treating, or caring for people with a given disease to justify exposing participants to the risk and burden of research.

A study should be designed in a way that will get an understandable answer to the important research question. This includes considering whether the question asked is answerable, whether the research methods are valid and feasible, and whether the study is designed with accepted principles, clear methods, and reliable practices. Invalid research is unethical because it is a waste of resources and exposes people to risk for no purpose

The primary basis for recruiting participants should be the scientific goals of the study — not vulnerability, privilege, or other unrelated factors. Participants who accept the risks of research should be in a position to enjoy its benefits. Specific groups of participants  (for example, women or children) should not be excluded from the research opportunities without a good scientific reason or a particular susceptibility to risk.

Uncertainty about the degree of risks and benefits associated with a clinical research study is inherent. Research risks may be trivial or serious, transient or long-term. Risks can be physical, psychological, economic, or social. Everything should be done to minimize the risks and inconvenience to research participants to maximize the potential benefits, and to determine that the potential benefits are proportionate to, or outweigh, the risks.

To minimize potential conflicts of interest and make sure a study is ethically acceptable before it starts, an independent review panel should review the proposal and ask important questions, including: Are those conducting the trial sufficiently free of bias? Is the study doing all it can to protect research participants? Has the trial been ethically designed and is the risk–benefit ratio favorable? The panel also monitors a study while it is ongoing.

Potential participants should make their own decision about whether they want to participate or continue participating in research. This is done through a process of informed consent in which individuals (1) are accurately informed of the purpose, methods, risks, benefits, and alternatives to the research, (2) understand this information and how it relates to their own clinical situation or interests, and (3) make a voluntary decision about whether to participate.

Respect for potential and enrolled participants

Individuals should be treated with respect from the time they are approached for possible participation — even if they refuse enrollment in a study — throughout their participation and after their participation ends. This includes:

• respecting their privacy and keeping their private information confidential
• respecting their right to change their mind, to decide that the research does not match their interests, and to withdraw without a penalty
• informing them of new information that might emerge in the course of research, which might change their assessment of the risks and benefits of participating
• monitoring their welfare and, if they experience adverse reactions, unexpected effects, or changes in clinical status, ensuring appropriate treatment and, when necessary, removal from the study
• informing them about what was learned from the research

More information on these seven guiding principles and on bioethics in general

This page last reviewed on March 16, 2016

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity

• Reference work
• © 2020
• Ron Iphofen 0

Chatelaillon Plage, France

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Analyzes current information, issues and challenges
• Covers consent, privacy, data, fraud and plagiarism
• Offers practical advice and guidance that will help researchers and professionals think through their approach
• Includes supplementary material: sn.pub/extras

192k Accesses

152 Citations

11 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

This handbook is a ‘one-stop shop’ for current information, issues and challenges in the fields of research ethics and scientific integrity. It provides a comprehensive coverage of research and integrity issues, both within researchers’ ‘home’ discipline and in relation to similar concerns in other disciplines. The handbook covers common elements shared by disciplines and research professions, such as consent, privacy, data management, fraud, and plagiarism. The handbook also includes contributions and perspectives from academics from various disciplines, treating issues specific to their fields. Readers are able to quickly source the most comprehensive and up-to-date information, protagonists, issues and challenges in the field. Experienced researchers keen to assess their own perspectives, as well as novice researchers aiming to establish the field, will equally find the handbook of interest and practical benefit. It saves them a great deal of time in sourcing the disparate available material in these fields and it is the first ‘port of call’ for a wide range of researchers, research advisors, funding agencies and research reviewers.The most important feature is the handbook’s ability to provide practical advice and guidance to researchers in a wide range of disciplines and professions to help them ‘think through’ their approach to difficult questions related to the principles, values and standards they need to bring to their research practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

An Introduction to Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity

Integrity: Research

• research ethics
• scientific integrity
• research integrity
• research ethics review
• research governance
• publication ethics
• ethics codes and guidelines
• research fraude
• the global position
• business and management studies
• regulating research
• informed consent

Table of contents (64 entries)

Front matter, introduction.

Ron Iphofen

Regulating Research

Research ethics governance.

• Mihalis Kritikos

Organizing and Contesting Research Ethics

• Mark Israel

Research Ethics Codes and Guidelines

• Margit Sutrop, Mari-Liisa Parder, Marten Juurik

Protecting Participants in Clinical Trials Through Research Ethics Review

• Richard Carpentier, Barbara McGillivray

Publication Ethics

• Deborah C. Poff, David S. Ginley

Peer Review in Scholarly Journal Publishing

• Jason Roberts, Kristen Overstreet, Rachel Hendrick, Jennifer Mahar

Research Misconduct

• Ian Freckelton Q. C.

Dual Use in Modern Research

• Panagiotis Kavouras, Costas A. Charitidis

Key Topics in Research Ethics

Informed consent and ethical research.

• Margit Sutrop, Kristi Lõuk

Privacy in Research Ethics

• Kevin Macnish

Biosecurity Risk Management in Research

• Johannes Rath, Monique Ischi

Benefit Sharing

• Doris Schroeder

Internet Research Ethics and Social Media

• Charles Melvin Ess

Editors and Affiliations

About the editor, bibliographic information.

Book Title : Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity

Editors : Ron Iphofen

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy , Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences , Reference Module Humanities

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Hardcover ISBN : 978-3-030-16758-5 Published: 02 April 2020

eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-16759-2 Published: 01 April 2020

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XXV, 1140

Number of Illustrations : 2 b/w illustrations, 20 illustrations in colour

Topics : Research Ethics , Humanities and Social Sciences, multidisciplinary , Research Methodology

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

• Sign in to my profile My Profile

100 Questions (and Answers) About Research Ethics

• By: Emily E. Anderson & Amy Corneli
• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Series: SAGE 100 Questions and Answers
• Publication year: 2018
• Online pub date: February 19, 2021
• Discipline: Sociology
• Methods: Informed consent , Research ethics , Internet research
• DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781506348681
• Keywords: consent forms , federal regulation , institutions , recruitment , regulations , risk , surveying Show all Show less
• Print ISBN: 9781506348704
• Online ISBN: 9781071849392
• Buy the book icon link

Subject index

100 Questions (and Answers) About Research Ethics is an essential guide for graduate students and researchers in the social and behavioral sciences. It identifies ethical issues that individuals must consider when planning research studies as well as provides guidance on how to address ethical issues that might arise during research implementation. Questions such as assessing risks, to protecting privacy and vulnerable populations, obtaining informed consent, using technology including social media, negotiating the IRB process, and handling data ethically are covered. Acting as a resource for students developing their thesis and dissertation proposals and for junior faculty designing research, this book reflects the latest U.S. federal research regulations to take effect mostly in January 2018.

Front Matter

• Acknowledgments
• About the Authors
• Chapter 1 | What Is Ethics, and How Does It Apply to Research With Human Participants?
• Chapter 2 | What Is the Ethical Justification for Conducting Research With Human Participants?
• Chapter 3 | What Broad Ethical Principles Apply to Research With Human Participants?
• Chapter 4 | What Ethical Guidance and Regulations Inform Research With Human Participants, and What, If Anything, Has Changed Over Time?
• Chapter 5 | What Is the Relationship Between Ethics and Compliance?
• Chapter 6 | What Are the Potential Consequences of Ignoring Ethical Principles and Regulations?
• Chapter 7 | What Kinds of Research Are Considered Unethical, and What Are Some Examples of Serious Ethical Lapses in Social and Behavioral Sciences Research?
• Chapter 8 | How Do Standard Ethical Practices for Research Vary Among Academic Disciplines in the Social and Behavioral Sciences?
• Chapter 9 | Who Is Responsible for Ensuring Research Is Conducted Ethically?
• Chapter 10 | When I Begin Developing My Research, What Ethical Issues Should I First Consider?
• Chapter 11 | What Is Risk, and What Are the Risks in Social and Behavioral Sciences Research?
• Chapter 12 | How Do I Identify Risks in My Research—and Minimize Them?
• Chapter 13 | What Is Meant by “Minimal Risk”?
• Chapter 14 | What Are the Potential Benefits of Research?
• Chapter 15 | How Do I Design My Research So That the Risk–Benefit Balance Is Favorable?
• Chapter 16 | How Do I Make Sure That Participants in My Research Do Not Overestimate the Benefits or Underestimate the Risks?
• Chapter 17 | I Will Conduct Research on a Sensitive Topic. What Should I Do to Prevent Psychological Harms?
• Chapter 18 | What Is Meant by “Privacy” and “Confidentiality,” and Is There a Difference?
• Chapter 19 | What Makes Data De-Identified?
• Chapter 20 | What Makes Data Anonymous?
• Chapter 21 | When Is Information (or Behavior) Considered Private Rather Than Public, and How Can Private Information Be Used in Research?
• Chapter 22 | What Can I Do to Protect Participants’ Privacy During Data Collection and Reporting?
• Chapter 23 | What Can I Do to Protect the Confidentiality of Information Collected?
• Chapter 24 | When Must I Share Study Data—and Participant Names—With Individuals Outside of the Research Team?
• Chapter 25 | What Is a Certificate of Confidentiality?
• Chapter 26 | What Privacy Laws Must I Follow?
• Chapter 27 | What Kinds of Participants Are Considered Vulnerable in Research, and What Are Some Ways to Protect Vulnerable Participants?
• Chapter 28 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Conducting Research With Prisoners?
• Chapter 29 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Conducting Research With Pregnant Women?
• Chapter 30 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Conducting Research With Children?
• Chapter 31 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Conducting Research With Individuals Who Have Experienced Traumatic Events?
• Chapter 32 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Conducting Research With Adults Who May Lack Decision-Making Capacity Due to Cognitive Impairment?
• Chapter 33 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Conducting Research With Students, Particularly Students Whom I Teach?
• Chapter 34 | What Is Informed Consent?
• Chapter 35 | What Is the Informed Consent Process?
• Chapter 36 | What Is an Informed Consent Form?
• Chapter 37 | When Is Informed Consent Required?
• Chapter 38 | What Is the Difference Between Written and Verbal Informed Consent, and When Can Verbal Informed Consent Be Used?
• Chapter 39 | What Are the Requirements for Informing Participants in Research That Is Determined to Be Exempt From the Federal Regulations?
• Chapter 40 | What Type of Information Must Be Included in an Informed Consent Form?
• Chapter 41 | How Do I Write a Consent Form That Is Easy to Understand?
• Chapter 42 | How Do I Obtain Informed Consent?
• Chapter 43 | Who Can Consent to Research Participation?
• Chapter 44 | What Do I Do With the Consent Form After It Is Signed by a Participant?
• Chapter 45 | How Do I Obtain Informed Consent From a Prospective Participant Who Cannot Read the Consent Form?
• Chapter 46 | How Do I Obtain Informed Consent From Prospective Participants Who Speak a Different Language From Mine?
• Chapter 47 | How Can I Obtain Informed Consent From Individuals With Cognitive Impairments or Developmental Disabilities?
• Chapter 48 | How Do I Know If a Prospective Participant Understands the Research?
• Chapter 49 | How Do I Ensure That a Participant’s Consent Is Voluntary?
• Chapter 50 | Do I Need to Obtain Informed Consent Before Asking Screening Questions?
• Chapter 51 | Do I Need to Obtain Informed Consent From Individuals to Use Their Existing Data That Were Collected for Other Purposes?
• Chapter 52 | How Are Parents Involved in Decision Making About Their Children’s Participation in Research?
• Chapter 53 | What Type of Agreement Do I Need From Children So They Can Participate in Research?
• Chapter 54 | How Should I Obtain Informed Consent From Prospective Participants When I’m Conducting Research Outside the United States?
• Chapter 55 | How Do I Ensure That Eligibility Criteria Are Appropriate and Fair?
• Chapter 56 | What Strategies Can I Use to Ethically Recruit People to Join My Research?
• Chapter 57 | When Is It Appropriate to Pay Participants for Taking Part in Research?
• Chapter 58 | How Do I Determine the Appropriate Amount to Pay Research Participants?
• Chapter 59 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Conducting Focus Group Discussions?
• Chapter 60 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Conducting Participant Observations?
• Chapter 61 | What Are Some of the Ethical Issues Raised by Deception in Research, and When Is It Ethically Acceptable to Use Deception?
• Chapter 62 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider If My Intervention Research Includes a Control Group?
• Chapter 63 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Conducting Research in a Defined Community?
• Chapter 64 | What Is the Relationship Between Community Engagement and Research Ethics?
• Chapter 65 | What Does Cultural Competence Mean, and How Do I Apply It to Research Ethics?
• Chapter 66 | What Ethical Guidelines and Regulations Should I Consider When Conducting Research in Another Country?
• Chapter 67 | Are There Specific Ethical Guidelines for Conducting Research Online?
• Chapter 68 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Recruiting Study Participants Online?
• Chapter 69 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Collecting New Data Online?
• Chapter 70 | What Ethical Issues Should I Consider When Using Data That Already Exist Online?
• Chapter 71 | How Do I Document Informed Consent When Conducting Research Online—and Ensure That Participants Understand the Research?
• Chapter 72 | Is It Ethical for Me to Join an Online Discussion Group or Chat Room for Research Purposes Without Informing the Group That I’m a Researcher?
• Chapter 73 | How Do I Verify the Age of Individuals Who Participate in My Online Research?
• Chapter 74 | What Is an IRB, and Who Are the Members?
• Chapter 75 | How Do I Know If My Study Must Be Reviewed by an IRB?
• Chapter 76 | How Do I Know Which IRB—and How Many IRBs—Must Review and Approve My Proposed Research?
• Chapter 77 | When Is a Research Study “Exempt” From the Federal Research Regulations, and What Does This Mean?
• Chapter 78 | What Is Expedited Review?
• Chapter 79 | What Is the Difference Between Expedited and Full Board Review?
• Chapter 80 | What Materials Will I Need to Submit to the IRB?
• Chapter 81 | What Can I Expect During the IRB Review Process?
• Chapter 82 | Before IRB Approval, What Can I Do and Not Do?
• Chapter 83 | What Are Changes That the IRB Can Request, and How Do I Respond?
• Chapter 84 | What Should I Do If I Want to Change the Protocol, Consent Form, or Other Documents After They Have Been Approved by an IRB?
• Chapter 85 | What Should I Do If My Research Requires Continuing Review?
• Chapter 86 | I Am Collecting Data for a Class Project. Do I Need IRB Approval?
• Chapter 87 | I Am Conducting an Evaluation of a Program. Do I Need IRB Approval?
• Chapter 88 | What Confidentiality Procedures Should I Put in Place After All Data Have Been Collected?
• Chapter 89 | How Long Must I Keep My Research Records?
• Chapter 90 | When Can I Destroy My Research Files?
• Chapter 91 | Do I Have an Ethical Obligation to Publish My Research Findings?
• Chapter 92 | Can I Publish My Findings If I Did Not Get IRB Approval or Obtain Informed Consent From Participants?
• Chapter 93 | What Do I Need to Do to Ensure That I Protect Participants’ Identities When Sharing Datasets With Others and That Participants Are Informed of This Possibility?
• Chapter 94 | Can I Show Participants Their Transcripts or the Transcripts of Other Participants?
• Chapter 95 | Should I Share the Results of My Research With Study Participants?
• Chapter 96 | What Should I Do If I—or a Study Staff Member or Participant—Do Something That Was Not in the Approved Protocol?
• Chapter 97 | What Should I Do If Someone Is Physically, Emotionally, or Socially Harmed From Taking Part in My Research?
• Chapter 98 | What Should I Do If a Participant Says He Wants to Harm Himself or Someone Else?
• Chapter 99 | What Should I Do If I Lose My Field Notes or Other Hard Copies of Data?
• Chapter 100 | What Should I Do If a Participant Says a Person’s Name or the Name of an Organization During an Interview or Focus Group Discussion?

Back Matter

• References and Resources

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

• Sign in/register

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Please sign into your institution before accessing your profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources have to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

• View or download all content my institution has access to.

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources has to offer.

• view my profile
• view my lists

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

Research ethics.

Jennifer M. Barrow ; Grace D. Brannan ; Paras B. Khandhar .

Affiliations

Last Update: September 18, 2022 .

• Introduction

Multiple examples of unethical research studies conducted in the past throughout the world have cast a significant historical shadow on research involving human subjects. Examples include the Tuskegee Syphilis Study from 1932 to 1972, Nazi medical experimentation in the 1930s and 1940s, and research conducted at the Willowbrook State School in the 1950s and 1960s. [1]  As the aftermath of these practices, wherein uninformed and unaware patients were exposed to disease or subject to other unproven treatments, became known, the need for rules governing the design and implementation of human-subject research protocols became very evident.

The first such ethical code for research was the Nuremberg Code, arising in the aftermath of Nazi research atrocities brought to light in the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials. [1]  This set of international research standards sought to prevent gross research misconduct and abuse of vulnerable and unwitting research subjects by establishing specific human subject protective factors. A direct descendant of this code was drafted in 1978 in the United States, known as the Belmont Report, and this legislation forms the backbone of regulation of clinical research in the USA since its adoption. [2]  The Belmont Report contains 3 basic ethical principles:

• Respect for persons
• Beneficence

Additionally, the Belmont Report details research-based protective applications for informed consent, risk/benefit assessment, and participant selection. [3]

• Issues of Concern

The first protective principle stemming from the 1978 Belmont Report is the principle of Respect for Persons, also known as human dignity. [2]  This dictates researchers must work to protect research participants' autonomy while also ensuring full disclosure of factors surrounding the study, including potential harms and benefits. According to the Belmont Report, "an autonomous person is an individual capable of deliberation about personal goals and acting under the direction of such deliberation."  [1]

To ensure participants have the autonomous right to self-determination, researchers must ensure that potential participants understand that they have the right to decide whether or not to participate in research studies voluntarily and that declining to participate in any research does not affect in any way their access to current or subsequent care. Also, self-determined participants must be able to ask the researcher questions and comprehend the questions asked by the researcher. Researchers must also inform participants that they may stop participating in the study without fear of penalty. [4]  As noted in the Belmont Report definition above, not all individuals can be autonomous concerning research participation. Whether because of the individual's developmental level or because of various illnesses or disabilities, some individuals require special research protections that may involve exclusion from research activities that can cause potential harm or appointing a third-party guardian to oversee the participation of such vulnerable persons. [5]

Researchers must also ensure they do not coerce potential participants into agreeing to participate in studies. Coercion refers to threats of penalty, whether implied or explicit, if participants decline to participate or opt out of a study. Additionally, giving potential participants extreme rewards for agreeing to participate can be a form of coercion. The rewards may provide an enticing enough incentive that the participant feels they need to participate. In contrast, they would otherwise have declined if such a reward were not offered. While researchers often use various rewards and incentives in studies, they must carefully review this possibility of coercion. Some incentives may pressure potential participants into joining a study, thereby stripping participants of complete self-determination. [3]

An additional aspect of respecting potential participants' self-determination is to ensure that researchers have fully disclosed information about the study and explained the voluntary nature of participation (including the right to refuse without repercussion) and possible benefits and risks related to study participation. A potential participant cannot make a truly informed decision without complete information. This aspect of the Belmont Report can be troublesome for some researchers based on their study designs and research questions. Noted biases related to reactivity may occur when study participants know the exact guiding research questions and purposes. Some researchers may avoid reactivity biases using covert data collection methods or masking critical study information. Masking frequently occurs in pharmaceutical trials with placebos because knowledge of placebo receipt can affect study outcomes. However, masking and concealed data collection methods may not fully respect participants' rights to autonomy and the associated informed consent process. Any researcher considering hidden data collection or masking of some research information from participants must present their plans to an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for oversight, as well as explain the potential masking to prospective patients in the consent process (ie, explaining to potential participants in a medication trial that they are randomly assigned either the medication or a placebo). The IRB determines if studies warrant concealed data collection or masking methods in light of the research design, methods, and study-specific protections. [6]

The second Belmont Report principle is the principle of beneficence. Beneficence refers to acting in such a way to benefit others while promoting their welfare and safety. [7]  Although not explicitly mentioned by name, the biomedical ethical principle of nonmaleficence (not harm) also appears within the Belmont Report's section on beneficence. The beneficence principle includes 2 specific research aspects:

• Participants' right to freedom from harm and discomfort
• Participants' rights to protection from exploitation  [8]

Before seeking IRB approval and conducting a study, researchers must analyze potential risks and benefits to research participants. Examples of possible participant risks include physical harm, loss of privacy, unforeseen side effects, emotional distress or embarrassment, monetary costs, physical discomfort, and loss of time. Possible benefits include access to a potentially valuable intervention, increased understanding of a medical condition, and satisfaction with helping others with similar issues. [8]  These potential risks and benefits should explicitly appear in the written informed consent document used in the study. Researchers must implement specific protections to minimize discomfort and harm to align with the principle of beneficence. Under the principle of beneficence, researchers must also protect participants from exploitation. Any information provided by participants through their study involvement must be protected.

The final principle contained in the Belmont Report is the principle of justice, which pertains to participants' right to fair treatment and right to privacy. The selection of the types of participants desired for a research study should be guided by research questions and requirements not to exclude any group and to be as representative of the overall target population as possible. Researchers and IRBs must scrutinize the selection of research participants to determine whether researchers are systematically selecting some groups (eg, participants receiving public financial assistance, specific ethnic and racial minorities, or institutionalized) because of their vulnerability or ease of access. The right to fair treatment also relates to researchers treating those who refuse to participate in a study fairly without prejudice. [3]

The right to privacy also falls under the Belmont Report's principle of justice. Researchers must keep any shared information in their strictest confidence. Upholding the right to privacy often involves procedures for anonymity or confidentiality. For participants' data to be completely anonymous, the researcher cannot have the ability to connect the participants to their data. The study is no longer anonymous if researchers can make participant-data connections, even if they use codes or pseudonyms instead of personal identifiers. Instead, researchers are providing participant confidentiality. Various methods can help researchers assure confidentiality, including locking any participant identifying data and substituting code numbers instead of names, with a correlation key available only to a safety or oversight functionary in an emergency but not readily available to researchers. [3]

• Clinical Significance

One of the most common safeguards for the ethical conduct of research involves using external reviewers, such as an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Researchers seeking to begin a study must submit a full research proposal to the IRB, which includes specific data collection instruments, research advertisements, and informed consent documentation. The IRB may perform a complete or expedited review depending on the nature of the study and the risks involved. Researchers cannot contact potential participants or start collecting data until they obtain full IRB approval. Sometimes, multi-site studies require approvals from several IRBs, which may have different forms and review processes. [3]

A significant study aspect of interest to IRB members is using participants from vulnerable groups. Vulnerable groups may include individuals who cannot give fully informed consent or those individuals who may be at elevated risk of unplanned side effects. Examples of vulnerable participants include pregnant women, children younger than the age of consent, terminally ill individuals, institutionalized individuals, and those with mental or emotional disabilities. In the case of minors, assent is also an element that must be addressed per Subpart D of the Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46.402, which defines consent as "a child's affirmative agreement to participate in research; mere failure to object should not, absent affirmative agreement, be construed as assent."  [9] There is a lack in the literature on when minors can understand research, although current research suggests that the age by which a minor could assent is around 14. [10]  Anytime researchers include vulnerable groups in their studies, they must have extra safeguards to uphold the Belmont Report's ethical principles, especially beneficence. [3]

• Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Research ethics is a foundational principle of modern medical research across all disciplines. The overarching body, the IRB, is intentionally comprised of experts across various disciplines, including ethicists, social workers, physicians, nurses, other scientific researchers, counselors, mental health professionals, and advocates for vulnerable subjects. There is also often a legal expert on the panel or available to discuss any questions regarding the legality or ramifications of studies.

• Review Questions
• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Jennifer Barrow declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Grace Brannan declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Paras Khandhar declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

• Cite this Page Barrow JM, Brannan GD, Khandhar PB. Research Ethics. [Updated 2022 Sep 18]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

• Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• The historical, ethical, and legal background of human-subjects research. [Respir Care. 2008] The historical, ethical, and legal background of human-subjects research. Rice TW. Respir Care. 2008 Oct; 53(10):1325-9.
• The Belmont Report at 40: Reckoning With Time. [Am J Public Health. 2018] The Belmont Report at 40: Reckoning With Time. Adashi EY, Walters LB, Menikoff JA. Am J Public Health. 2018 Oct; 108(10):1345-1348. Epub 2018 Aug 23.
• Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code. [BMJ. 1996] Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code. Vollmann J, Winau R. BMJ. 1996 Dec 7; 313(7070):1445-9.
• Review The History of Human Subjects Research and Rationale for Institutional Review Board Oversight. [Nutr Clin Pract. 2021] Review The History of Human Subjects Research and Rationale for Institutional Review Board Oversight. Spellecy R, Busse K. Nutr Clin Pract. 2021 Jun; 36(3):560-567. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
• Review Ethical issues in research. [Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gyn...] Review Ethical issues in research. Artal R, Rubenfeld S. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Aug; 43:107-114. Epub 2017 Jan 23.

Recent Activity

• Research Ethics - StatPearls Research Ethics - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on 7 May 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on 6 July 2024.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviours, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to:

• Protect the rights of research participants
• Enhance research validity
• Maintain scientific integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research aims with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process, so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

• What the study is about
• The risks and benefits of taking part
• How long the study will take
• Your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information – for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymise data collection. For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymisation is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants, but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study, as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources, counselling, or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine scientific integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information – for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2024, July 05). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 October 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/ethical-considerations/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, data collection methods | step-by-step guide & examples, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources.

Ethical framework aims to counter risks of geoengineering research

Pressure for climate intervention may gain momentum as world heats up.

As interest grows in geoengineering as a strategy for tackling global warming, the world's largest association of Earth and space scientists today launched an ethical framework as a guide to responsible decision-making and inclusive dialogue.

The report, facilitated by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and advised by a global panel of experts, says any research into large-scale interventions in Earth's climate system must be grounded in sound ethical principles so society can make informed choices about whether to deploy them. It warns that the unintended consequences of large-scale deployment are largely unknown.

"Climate change requires immediate action, and our most urgent, non-negotiable priority must be to tackle the root cause, carbon emissions," said AGU President Lisa J. Graumlich. "But as pressure grows to supplement emissions reductions with active, large-scale intervention in Earth's climate system, we must ensure that research is done in ways that are inclusive, representative and just, carefully considering risks and benefits."

"We all live on this one planet, but solutions cannot be one size fits all," said Carlos Nobre, a senior researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies in São Paulo, Brazil, and member of the Ethical Framework Advisory Board. "Global communities have unique challenges and vulnerabilities. When we contemplate how to address the existential threat of climate change, it is imperative that we do so by centering ethics. This framework helps lay the foundation for effective collaboration and partnership."

The report, Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research ,seeks to establish a set of globally recognized ethical principles to guide research, funding and policy proposals, drawing on precedents developed to guide research around other emerging fields with unknown consequences, including ethical practices for biomedical research and genetic engineering.

In the 2015 UN Paris Agreement, the world's nations pledged to pursue efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. However, global emissions are still increasing, and every additional fraction of a degree will see more severe storms, floods, heatwaves and other climate impacts and increase the risk of triggering catastrophic tipping points such as the Amazon rainforest transforming into dry savannah or the collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Climate interventions, also known as geo-engineering or climate engineering, are deliberate, large-scale attempts to alter the climate system in a way that halts, slows down or reverses global warming. Climate intervention technologies and methods include:

carbon dioxide removal, which aims to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and store them, using approaches such as reforestation or increasing the ocean's capacity to absorb carbon;

solar radiation modification, which aims to reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth, such as approaches that increase the amount of sunlight reflected from clouds or space sunshades;

and emerging technologies and research, including those aiming to preserve ice sheets and restore sea ice and permafrost.

"Climate intervention must not replace greenhouse gas emissions reduction," said AGU Interim Executive Director and CEO Janice R. Lachance. "Yet there is robust discussion and debate on whether it should become part of a comprehensive strategy to slow warming, address legacy carbon emitted over the last century and get us back on track with global temperature targets. It is AGU's privilege and responsibility as a leader in climate science to advocate for responsible pursuit of knowledge."

The framework has been developed over a two-year period, under the guidance of an advisory board of more than 40 international experts from a wide range of disciplines, with extensive public consultation worldwide. It reflects contributions from hundreds of scientists, policymakers, ethicists, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and communities that could be disproportionately affected by climate change interventions. It proposes that all new research plans, funding decisions and policy proposals should meet five key principles:

Responsible Research. Climate intervention research should not be presented as an alternative to emissions reductions. Researchers should provide a clear, public justification of their activity. They should not only assess its direct risks but also the physical, environmental and social consequences if it were scaled.

Holistic Climate Justice. Before starting an activity, researchers should consider whether it would shift climate impacts from one group to another, as well as consider its impact on groups experiencing social, economic, climate and environmental injustices, on future generations, and on nature and biodiversity.

Inclusive Public Participation. Researchers should have fair and inclusive processes to identify groups that may be impacted by the activity and include them in discussion of the purposes and design of the research. They should secure the free, prior and informed consent of any Indigenous Peoples likely to be affected.

Transparency. Public and private funding of climate intervention research and experimentation should be completely transparent. Researchers should handle data responsibly, report on the nature of the science involved and document the decision-making process from start to finish. They should clearly report any negative results.

Informed Governance. Where technologies have significant risks, funders should require research proposals to be reviewed and approved by an independent body. Activities with higher risks or at larger scales should have greater scrutiny. Researchers should be accountable to a representative set of public institutions and stakeholders at scales relevant to the impact of the research.

"Communities need to be heard on decisions that affect them, " saidproject lead Billy Williams, AGU's Executive Vice President, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion."Though climate change is a risk shared by all Earth's people, the weight of climate consequences is not carried equally. As we consider technology to counteract warming, it is essential that we do not add to that unequal burden."

The framework applies to all types of climate intervention and covers lab research and computer modeling as well as activities undertaken in the field. It is designed to be flexible enough to be adapted to the needs of diverse contexts and actors and capable of evolving as society's understanding of climate risks and climate intervention technologies develops.

AGU intends for the framework to drive discussion within the broader community involved in and affected by climate intervention research, policy and investment and prompt the development of norms for ethical and responsible research practices.

"AGU and the contributors of this work strongly encourage all relevant actors, including researchers, funders and policymakers, to embrace these ethical principles when considering or undertaking activities relating to climate intervention research," says the report.

Further information on the report: https://www.agu.org/ethicalframeworkprinciples

• Global Warming
• Environmental Awareness
• Environmental Issues
• Environmental Policies
• World Development
• Resource Shortage
• Ocean Policy
• Attribution of recent climate change
• Climate engineering
• Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
• Global warming controversy
• IPCC Report on Climate Change - 2007
• Global climate model
• Political system

Story Source:

Materials provided by American Geophysical Union . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Fire-Risk Blocking Hydrogen Production System
• Tiny Electric Currents May Cut Skin Infections
• Grain-Sized Soft Robots for Drug Delivery
• PFAS: US Drinking Water Contamination
• Chronic Pain Predicted Within 3 Days of Injury
• Electric Cars: Long-Lasting Renewable Batteries
• Wildfires Becoming Faster, More Dangerous
• Beyond Superheavy Element Livermorium
• Weight-Loss Drug May Cut Alzheimer's Risk
• Human Actions Cause Insect Color Change

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.