Presentation on theme: "Moral the person’s individual set of values Ethics consensus of a social system Both try to define what is good and what is bad CUDOS (Robert Merton."— Presentation transcript:
Moral the person’s individual set of values Ethics consensus of a social system Both try to define what is good and what is bad CUDOS (Robert Merton 1940s sociologist) four principle norms for undertaking research: Communism/Communalism new knowledge should be public Universalism it’s only about the research, not the researcher! (e.g. gender, race) Disinterestedness no other motives than contribution to new knowledge! Organized Skepticism critical assessment of your own work Not always easy to follow since they can interfere with personal motives, such as employment perspectives.
2. About research – what, why, how and for whom? Types of research: Basic Applied Commissioned Last two very similar, differ only with the source of money and who came up with the idea. All types equally important. However, applied/commissioned science is doing well, while funding for basic science is controversial.
2. About research – what, why, how and for whom? What to investigate? Interesting/relevant things! How to do it? By proper means! Who is responsible? Your supervisor! Or you?! I would argue that it is up to you. But whose fault it is that “a great many studies are conducted that do not allow for conclusions – and “unnecessary” research is conducted in the sense that its questions have already been answered”
3. ethics review and other approval review Projects involving humans should be reviewed: approval from ethics review board eg. personal data; judgement on races or politics; physical or psychological treatment. other approval eg. clinical trials (Swedish medical product agency); eg. project involving irradiation (local radiation protection committee) People’s welfare should be placed before the needs of society and science, and the value of the knowledge the research will contribute must considered to outweigh the risks.
Projects involving animal experiments should be reviewed: “Moral relevance” having moral relevance in itself - intrinsic value (animals themselves) relevant for the sake of someone/something else - instrumental value (animals as material) “Animals’ rights” Animals with intrinsic value have rights, but depends on their phylogenetic position (?). eg. shrimps have fewer rights than mice; mice have fewer rights than primates. Tasks of the boards: To weigh the importance of the experiment to the society in general as well as for research itself against the suffering inflicted on the animals, and determine whether the importance is sufficient to justify the animals’ expected suffering. 3. ethics review and other approval review
4. Handling of research material What should be made public? -Funding agencies: public data to advance science+ right from contributors to find out about results + good use of research money (re-use of data) + checking for misconducts - Subject of the study (e.g. patient): confidential information, trust patient-doctor What can the researcher promise to the subject ? Secrecy - professional secrecy - anonimity -confidentiality Helsinki declaration/ Archive act The researcher cannot do whatever he wants with the research material, it belongs to the university or research institution.
5. Research Collaboration Responsibilities and tasks of every involved what to do when some promise and don't do? balance beween expertise and learning, keep interest authorship and reward expectations who owns the data/software created along? Relations to the funding agencies avoid overstressing the national contribution communicate early on large impact decisions recognize the different funding motives PhD funded by industrial companies, public vs exclusive problems of different legislations of the countries involved
5. Research Collaboration Responsibility one PI as leading responsible one PI for ethics review refrain to just use "big names" to gain visibility and credentials design of a clear management structure, roles Hierarchical structure influence, knowledge and carefulness defines responsibility moral and legal responsibility, relative
6. Not even the citation-based metrics are reliable
6. GOOD FAITH and an element of trust in research Unavoidable caveats: - Paper slicing - Author sandwich
6. False results are more reliable; Just rephrase the hypothesis
7. Supervisor’s Role Advisor and critic Responsible for ethical permissions and approvals Teacher and reviewer Should read the student’s work prior to presentation or publication In a position of power, this must not be abused Committee work – service to the scientific community
8. Research Misconduct Undermines the public confidence in science Can cause harm if leads to poorly implemented public projects (i.e. bad drugs, faulty bridges) Probably pretty common occurrence 18% of researchers had direct experience Includes fabrication and plagiarism Difficult to establish when these things have happened, difficult to take action against within the university setting Prevention: Good working environment with open collaboration