Ethics In Research Writing Salam N Asfar

Ethics is principles of conduct governing an individual or a group. Research is a must for the progress of science and a well-written research paper adds to the knowledge of the society, apart from bringing honor to its authors.

"First of all, do no harm" Hippocrates Ethical behavior "First of all, do no harm" Hippocrates Research ethics Publication ethics

Research ethics Declaration of Helsinki The Declaration of Helsinki is a recognized statement developed by the World Medical Association that provides ethical guidelines that physicians and other medical research participants should adhere to when conducting research that uses human subjects. The Declaration of Helsinki was first adopted in Helsinki, Finland in June, 1964.

Human subject should provide voluntary consent and know the risks of participation. The experimental results must be for the greater good of society. Experiment should be based on previous animal experimentation. Experiment should avoid unnecessary physical and mental suffering. No experiments should be conducted if it is believed to cause disability or death. Benefits must always outweigh the risks. Adequate facilities should be used to protect subjects. Experiment should be conducted only by qualified scientists. Subject should always be at liberty to stop at any time. Scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment where injury or death is likely to occur.

- Publication ethics avoid misconduct protect patients’ identities report clearly: informed consent any deviation from usual practice full burden imposed on participants total risks posed to participants or others benefits to participants, patients, society It’s not always enough to state that the study was approved by an ethical committee

Protect patients’ confidentiality Beware identifiers: age, sex, location, clinical details, test results unusual personal story photo (even if of a body part or clinical image)

patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written description, photographs or history, unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient or parents give written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate

Misconduct (Bad behavior) Fabrication: making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Presenting unconfirmed facts or data and changing or selecting certain data to achieve a desired result. Also it is misrepresenting evidence, facts, or authorship. Plagiarism: the use of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit and attribution.

The honest article describe sources of information and methods of selection declare opposing interests don’t ignore important data don’t ignore important work of others If the work is financially supported by some commercial organization or pharmaceutical company, the source of funding must be acknowledged

When presenting results of randomized controlled trials, authors should indicate clearly how many patients were screened, randomized, assessed, and included in the study. All the citations mentioned in the write up should be stated in the reference list and they should be checked carefully for their accuracy in all respects. The authors must keep in their mind that their statement on conclusion derived from the study will determine the treatment of countless number of patients. Therefore, they should act honestly for the benefit of patients and public at large, and they should write only the facts which have emerged from the study.

Rules of good ethics Honesty struggle for honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures. Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data. Do not deceive colleagues, research sponsors, or the public. Objectivity Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required. Avoid or minimize bias or self-deception

Integrity Keep your promises and agreements; act with honesty; try hard for consistency of thought and action. Carefulness Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

Openness Share data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Be open to criticism and new ideas. Respect for Academic Property Honor copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. Do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission. Give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research. Never plagiarize.

Confidentiality Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records. Responsible Publication Publish in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career. Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.

Social Responsibility Strive to promote social good and prevent or reduce social harms. Non-Discrimination Avoid discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors not related to scientific competence and integrity.

Animal Care Show proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments. Human Subjects Protection When conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect human dignity & privacy.

There are many other activities that the society does not define as "misconduct" but which are still regarded by most researchers as unethical. • Submitting or publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors •Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the paper •Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are reviewing for a journal •Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your research •Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving peers adequate information to review your work •Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your project will make a significant contribution to the field •Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do it the fastest •Overworking, neglecting, or making use of graduate or post-graduate students

Ethics workshop Case 1: The research protocol for a study of a drug on hypertension requires the administration of the drug at different doses to 50 laboratory mice, with chemical and behavioral tests to determine toxic effects. Tom has almost finished the experiment. He has only 5 mice left to test. However, he really wants to finish his work in time to go to Florida on spring break with his friends who are leaving tonight. He therefore decides to extrapolate or judge from the 45 completed results to produce the 5 additional results.

Case 2: Dr. T has just discovered a mathematical error in his paper that has been accepted for publication in a journal. The error does not affect the overall results of his research, but it is potentially misleading. The journal has just gone to press, so it is too late to catch the error before it appears in print. In order to avoid embarrassment, Dr. T decides to ignore the error.

Case 3: Dr. Wexford is the principal investigator of a large, epidemiological study on the health of 10,000 agricultural workers. She has an impressive dataset that includes information on demographics, environmental exposures, diet, genetics, and various disease outcomes such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease (PD). She has just published a paper on the relationship between pesticide exposure and PD in a prestigious journal. She is planning to publish many other papers from her dataset. She receives a request from another research team that wants access to her complete dataset. They are interested in examining the relationship between pesticide exposures and skin cancer. Dr. Wexford was planning to conduct a study on this topic. Dr. Wexford faces a difficult choice. On one hand, the ethical norm of openness obliges her to share data with the other research team. Her funding agency may also have rules that obligate her to share data. On the other hand, if she shares data with the other team, they may publish results that she was planning to publish, thus depriving her of recognition and priority.

References Flangin A. Human rights in the biomedical literature: The social responsibility of medical journals. JAMA. 2000;284:618–9. [PubMed] Washington DC: The Department; 1990. US department of Health and Human Service Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. First and Final annual report. Scientific misconduct investigations: Reviewed by the office of Scientific Integrity Review. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscript submitted to biomedical journals: Updated October 2008. ICMJE. [Last accessed on 2011 Dec 23]. web site. Available from: http://www.icmje.org . Triggle CR, Triggle DJ. What is future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”? Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3:39–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed] Thomson DF. Understanding conflict of interest. N Eng J Med. 1993;329:573–6. [PubMed] Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel –group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191–4. [PubMed Fundamentals of good medical writing, Dr. Trish Groves, Deputy editor, BMJ Responsible Conduct of Research, Shamoo A and Resnik 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press). What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important? by David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D