Ethics in Research

Published on Explorable.com (https://explorable.
com)
Ethics in Research
Table of Contents
1 Ethics in Research
2 Deception and Research
2.1 Informed Consent Policy
2.1.1 Tuskegee Syphilis Study
3 Privacy in Research
4 Using Animals in Research
5 Stem Cell Research
6 Research Regulations
6.1 Scientific Misconduct
6.2 Science Fraud
6.2.1 Subliminal Messages
6.2.2 Scientific Falsification
6.3 Research Grant Funding
7 Competition in Science
7.1 Academic Plagiarism
7.2 Sham Peer Review
8 Whistleblowers in Science
1
Copyright Notice
Copyright © Explorable.com 2014. All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in
whole or in part in any form. No parts of this book may be reproduced in any form without
written permission of the copyright owner.
Notice of Liability
The author(s) and publisher both used their best efforts in preparing this book and the
instructions contained herein. However, the author(s) and the publisher make no warranties of
any kind, either expressed or implied, with regards to the information contained in this book,
and especially disclaim, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for any particular purpose.
In no event shall the author(s) or the publisher be responsible or liable for any loss of profits or
other commercial or personal damages, including but not limited to special incidental,
consequential, or any other damages, in connection with or arising out of furnishing,
performance or use of this book.
Trademarks
Throughout this book, trademarks may be used. Rather than put a trademark symbol in every
occurrence of a trademarked name, we state that we are using the names in an editorial
fashion only and to the benefit of the trademark owner with no intention of infringement of the
trademarks. Thus, copyrights on individual photographic, trademarks and clip art images
reproduced in this book are retained by the respective owner.
Information
Published by Explorable.com.
Cover design by Explorable / Gilli.me.
2
1 Ethics in Research
Ethics in research are very important when you're going to conduct an
experiment.
Ethics should be applied on all stages of research, such as planning, conducting and
evaluating a research project.
The first thing to do before designing a study is to consider the potential cost and benefits of
the research.
Research - Cost and Benefits-Analysis
We evaluate the cost and benefits for most decisions in life, whether we are aware of it or not.
Ethics should be applied on all stages of research, such as planning, conducting and
evaluating a research project.
The first thing to do before designing a study is to consider the potential cost and benefits of
the research.
This can be quite a dilemma in some experiments. Stem cell research is one example of an
area with difficult ethical considerations.
As a result, stem cell research is restricted in many countries, because of the major and
problematic ethical issues.
Ethical Standards - Researchers Should...

avoid any risk of considerably harming people, the environment, or property
unnecessarily. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is an example of a study which seriously
violated these standards.
not use deception on people participating, as was the case with the ethics of the Stanley
Milgram Experiment
3
obtain informed consent from all involved in the study.
preserve privacy and confidentiality whenever possible.
take special precautions when involving populations or animals which may not be
considered to understand fully the purpose of the study.
not offer big rewards or enforce binding contracts for the study. This is especially
important when people are somehow reliant on the reward.
not plagiarize the work of others
not skew their conclusions based on funding.
not commit science fraud, falsify research or otherwise conduct scientific misconduct. A
con-study, which devastated the public view of the subject for decades, was the
study of selling more coke and popcorn by unconscious ads. The researcher said that
he had found great effects from subliminal messages, whilst he had, in fact, never
conducted the experiment.
not use the position as a peer reviewer to give sham peer reviews to punish or damage
fellow scientists.
Basically, research must follow all regulations given, and also anticipate possible ethical
problems in their research.
Competition is an important factor in research, and may be both a good thing and a bad thing.
Whistleblowing is one mechanism to help discover misconduct in research.
How to cite this article:
Oskar Blakstad (Nov 23, 2008). Ethics in Research. Retrieved from Explorable.com:
https://explorable.com/ethics-in-research
4
2 Deception and Research
Ethics is one of the most crucial areas of research, with deception and research
increasingly becoming a crucial area of discussion between psychologists,
philosophers and ethical groups.
There is no doubt that, for many psychological and sociological experiments, the less that the
subject knows, the better.
Unfortunately, this intent can stray into harming people, intentionally or otherwise, and
psychology associations across the world have to constantly update their ethical codes to
incorporate new discoveries about the human mind.
Examples of Deception and Research

To show how ethical concerns have changed during the 20th century, it is useful to look at
some examples.
The Stanford Prison Experiment and the BBC Follow Up.
In the case of the Stanford Prison Experiment, very few critics accuse Philip Zimbardo of any
inhumanity.
Zimbardo was a professor at Stanford and did not fully understand the implications at the
time. Looking back, with hindsight, there was not enough information given to prisoners and
guards beforehand, and reasonable consent was not possible.
Possibly the gravest mistake he made was not pre-testing the participants, and the way that
the advert was worded may have garnered responses from people more inclined towards
masochistic and controlling behavior. Zimbardo was not a bad person, quite the opposite, but
this infamous experiment highlighted the danger of mixing deception and research.
The BBC experiment, in 2002, tried to replicate the Stanford Prison Experiment, but used
different techniques and ethical codes.
The experimenters ensured that the applicants were informed about the fact that they may be
subject to emotional distress. The applicants were selected after careful psychological
evaluation. A paramedic and psychology team watched 24/7, and any one of these had the
5
right to halt the experiment immediately and intervene.
An ethical committee chaired by a member of parliament vetted the procedures first and gave
the go-ahead for the experiment. Again, they could bring a complete halt to the proceedings.
Unlike in Zimbardo's research, the Guards underwent some training and were told exactly
what was, and what was not acceptable.
This experiment, whilst it would attract rigorous scrutiny, addressed the concerns about
deception in research in the best way, and it has received less criticism than Zimbardo.
The addition of a consent form at the end allowing a subject to ask for their input to be
removed would probably bring it into line with modern day values, so any deception within the
experiment was minimized.
The Piliavin and Piliavin Experiment - Public Deception and Research
After the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese, where the victim allegedly screamed for 30
minutes whilst she was brutally killed and raped, raised questions about why no bystanders or
neighbors intervened, or even phoned the police.
See also: Bystander Apathy Experiment
In response, Piliavin and Piliavin, realizing that a laboratory experiment with informed consent
would not produce accurate enough results, designed an experiment where they would
measure 'Good Samaritan' behavior upon unsuspecting members of the public traveling in a
New York subway train.
A model, either apparently drunk or carrying a cane would collapse, and the amount of helpful
interventions by members of the public would be determined.
The results of the experiment determined that people were generally very helpful, although a
little more reluctant to help a drunk.
In terms of the ethical code governing deception and research, it could be argued that the
experiment could be performed in no other way, as previous attempts showed.
If the participants possessed pre-information, and knew that they were being watched, the
bystanders would be more likely to help. The usefulness of the results is also undoubted and
unquestionable.
The murder caused a lot of publicity and it could be argued that such a study into behavior
could lead to educational adjustments and cultural changes preventing a repeat.
For example, a publicity campaign asking people to intervene, or phone the emergency
6
services if they felt too physically threatened, could justify the ethical risks.
The problem with the experiment is that there was no pre-experimental consent, and the
experiment could have emotionally distressed people, either because they thought that
somebody was hurt or due to guilt from their failure to help.
The fact that there was no psychological evaluation after the experiment, because the
participants were unknown, means that this would not be allowed today.
There are some TV shows trying to perform similar experiments, with similar issues of
consent, but they are always at least careful to explain to unwitting participants after the
event. Many psychologists consider that these 'reality' shows stray across the line governing
deception and research.
The Difficulty of Balancing Deception and Research

These two research studies are examples of how science has to constantly refine and update
ethical codes.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is one evil extreme, but experiments like the above and the
Milgram experiment show that even the best-intentioned research can end up straying onto
the wrong side of the divide.
Deception in research is one area where balancing the needs for statistical accuracy and
validity against ethics is always a very difficult process.
For most studies, the informed consent policy is used - when not used, an ethical committee
must approve that the deception does not cause harm or distrust of research.
Martyn Shuttleworth (Oct 26, 2009). Deception and Research. Retrieved from
Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/deception-and-research
7
2.1 Informed Consent Policy
As shown by the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the Stanford Prison Experiment and the
Milgram Experiment, an informed consent policy is an essential part of any scientific
research.
All three of these studies broke the rules in different ways.
In the Tuskegee Study, researchers did not inform the participants that they would be denied
treatment, just one of the ways in which this disgraceful experiment failed.
The Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram Experiment failed to assess the risks and
instruct the participants about any potential psychological damage.
Deception can occur through concealment, where a subject is not told the whole truth about
the potential effects, or deception, where the participant is deliberately lied to.
Psychological and medical experiments attempt to use controls, and this is where problems
can arise.
A true control should use blind methods, but this is a difficult balance to strike. Very few
researchers would deliberately put a subject at risk, but there is another problem.
The main problem is that most participants are non-scientists, and it is all too easy to
inadvertently deceive them because they do not fully understand the consequences.
Here is a summary of the APA code of ethics and informed consent policy - most other
research areas use similar codes of practice.
1. A psychologist must not perform experiments using deception unless the research has a
valid use, and there is no viable alternative.
2. There are some risks that must never be concealed, such as physical risk, severe
emotional distress and discomfort. For example, a subject volunteering for a sleep
deprivation experiment must be informed, rather than ordered to participate, as
happened within the military.
3. Any deception should be revealed as soon as possible, and certainly no later than the
conclusion of the experiment.
These have been set in stone for many years, but have recently been adapted. A subject
8
signs an initial consent form but, after the experiment has been explained at the end, they
sign a second and can ask for their contribution and records to be destroyed. Part of this is
due to various Data Protection acts, but the rise of reality TV has also contributed to a
strengthening of ethical controls and consent.
The 'Big Brother' TV series and many other alleged 'psychological experiments' provided an
initial informed consent policy form, but it could be argued that the participants did not realize
that the program is subjected to selective editing, portraying them in the worst possible light.
Under the adjusted guidelines, a contestant could ask for their contribution to be removed,
which would jeopardize the whole filming process. Of course, there are many other reasons
why these programs cannot be classed as a psychological experiment, but ethical concerns
and consent are an issue that may hit the courtrooms soon.
Modern belief is that except in extreme circumstances, a subject should be informed about the
dangers before the experiment. At the very least, they should have been given an informed
consent policy at the end and have the opportunity to have any data about them destroyed.
In this example, Milgram's experiment is a grey area, because the subjects were informed
straight after the study. If a researcher designed a similar experiment today, it would be
unlikely to pass ethical considerations.
At the time of experimentation, when the world was trying to understand if 'Just obeying
orders,' was a viable excuse for the worst excesses of the Nazi regime, then it could be
argued that the usefulness of the results outweighed the distress caused.
The morale of this is that any experiment has to be judged upon a case-by-case basis. The
Stanford Prison Experiment did have as much consent as possible, but the failing in this case
was the failure of the researcher to halt the experiment when distress was observed.
For example, Zimbardo, the head researcher in the experiment, should have remained
outside the study and pulled the plug, rather than allowing himself to be drawn in to the
psychological morass.
The Tuskegee Study had no justification, and the researchers not only failed to inform, but
also broke their medical commitment to the Hippocratic Oath, failing to preserve life. This is a
much more serious issue than consent, and is no different from the notorious Nazi
experiments.
No ethical code or informed consent policy can be perfect, and there will always be situations
where the experimenter caused too much distress.
On the other hand, there may be times when the experiment lost some validity due to
informed consent. This is a problem with no correct answer, although modern techniques err
9
on the side of caution.
Very few peer reviewers will be too strict upon questioning the validity of experiment because
of ethical caution.
Instead, reviewers understand that error arising from this has to be incorporated into the
interpretation of the results. This is something to which science has to work around and adapt.
Martyn Shuttleworth (Mar 12, 2009). Informed Consent Policy. Retrieved from
Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/informed-consent-policy
10
2.1.1 Tuskegee Syphilis Study
1932-72
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was initiated because known treatments for syphilis, in
1932, had shown little demonstrated effect, in addition to being toxic and dangerous.
The dependent variable in the Tuskegee Experiment (the knowledge researchers wanted),
was whether persons with syphilis were, in fact, better off without the treatment.
We now know that syphilis is curable just treating it with penicillin.
The study is well known, because of the tragedy it caused for many people and also because
of the sheer lack of ethical consideration shown by the scientists concerned.
The subjects (participants) were mostly illiterate blacks from Tuskegee, Alabama (USA).
Syphilis is a sexual transmitted disease. It can lead to a range of painful, chronic and deadly
symptoms, such as infection in the nerve-system, or cardiovascular-complications.
Unethical Study
There are 6 main points which are regarded as highly unethical in the study:
1. There was no informed consent.

2. The participants were not informed of all the known dangers.
3. The participants had to agree to an autopsy after their death, in order to have their
funeral costs covered.
4. Scientists denied treatment to some patients, in order to observe the individual dangers
and fatal progression of the disease.
5. Participants were not given the cure, even when it was widely known and easily
available.
6. The designers used a misleading advertisement: The researchers advertised for
participants with the slogan; "Last Chance for Special Free Treatment". The subjects
were NOT given a treatment, instead being recruited for a very risky spinal tap-
diagnostic.
11
At the beginning of the study, the subjects were not well informed about the whole purpose of
the research; neither were they informed of the inherent dangers of the study. The experiment
was at the time seen as potentially beneficial for the humankind, but did not consider the harm
caused to individuals and their families.
By 1947, Penicillin had become the standard treatment for curing syphilis. Instead of
performing the necessary duty; closing the study and giving all of the subjects some penicillin,
the scientists of Tuskegee Syphilis Study withheld treatment from many of the participants.
The scientists did not follow the commonly used ethical rules of research.
The study ended in 1972, 25 years after the cure was known and publicly available.
By the end of the study, 28 persons had died from the disease, 100 persons had died from
related diseases and 40 wives and 19 children had been infected with syphilis.
Explorable.com (Oct 9, 2008). Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

https://explorable.com/tuskegee-syphilis-study
12
3 Privacy in Research
Confidentiality
Privacy in research refers to the confidentiality afforded to participants in the research.
Why is Confidentiality Important in Research?

Science depends on research participants to volunteer information regarding individual beliefs
and actions on a host of topics. A participant or subject is more likely to provide honest
responses when their identity is not going to be exposed.
Considerations for confidentiality should be given to the following:
Nature of the response.

Possible punishment for the response.
Possible punishment for participation.
Perceived punishment for the participation.
Fear of embarrassment
Participants answer differently if they think that privacy may be compromised
The research may focus on topics that are taboo in society and it would be difficult to illicit
honest responses to some of the questions posed when a participant did not feel secure in
knowing that their identity is protected.
There also maybe some personal liability involved depending on the topic of the study. If the
study involved cheating on testing at the university they attended and a guarantee of
anonymity could not be provided, the likelihood of honest answers being given would be very
low, for fear of retaliation.
Bias in employment although illegal is very real, if confidentiality is not upheld and if the wrong
information is passed around regarding a participant it could very well effect the ability of the
participant to maintain employment and be employed in the future.
In addition there are other negative responses that a participant may face if the research is on
an unpopular topic, or a controversial issue. If the group involved in the research all works for
the same organization and the study is to determine the employer's unethical practices,
13
participants if not kept confidential could suffer great consequences for their responses.
In some cultures a subject's participation alone could result in public punishment, being
excommunicated from the community or even death.
There may only be a perception of punishment for participation if confidentiality is not

guaranteed. The perception alone will keep potential subjects from participating in the
research, and will also prevent honest answers.
Research is never meant to punish anyone, it's only goal should be greater knowledge and
understanding working toward a positive goal.
Privacy matters should be addressed from the inception of the research to the publication of
the results. There should be safety nets put in place to guarantee confidentiality. The only
amount of personal data that should be collected for the research is the minimal amount
needed to insure a proper sampling of the population. Personal identifiable information should
not be collected nor maintained unless absolutely necessary. Research staff should be
properly trained in procedure to maintain confidentiality.
Informed Consent
Informed consent is required in all studies and research using human participants. The
consent to participate should clearly outline the purpose of the study and what the information
gathered will be used for.
When is Confidentiality not an Issue

Confidentiality is not an issue when observing large groups, where individual responses or
actions are not considered or when participants' identifiable information is not involved. Even
in cases where there are large groups being assessed it is up to the researcher to use good
judgment in making decisions regarding what information should be shared.
A Legal Breach
There is a sticky area when it comes to confidentiality. If a participant in a research event or a
study falls into any of the below categories than the researcher is legally compelled to report
the participant.
Risk of bodily harm - if there is a potential that a violent act will occur against someone
else or the participant at his/her own hand.
Cases of child abuse - sexual misconduct with a child, or there is imminent danger to a
child that has been disclosed.
14
Terrorism - there is a terrorist act or plan in place that the participant has disclosed.
There is a eminent threat to public health.
There is some ethical concern by being required to report someone in any of the categories
above. Let us look at these few examples to review the ethical quandary.
Sample A
A study is being conducted looking at the effectiveness of a drug on depression. The

participants are asked to record feelings of violence, suicide, anger and despair, both before
they began taking the medication and after three weeks of being on the medication.
Each category is assigned a numerical value to display a range of feelings from very likely to
least likely. The study is dependent on honest answers, the participants have been promised
confidentiality.
If 30 of the 100 participants report that they feel more suicidal since taking the medication, is
the researcher required to report all thirty of the participants?
Sample B
AIDS patients have been asked to participate in a study to gauge sexual habits since being
diagnosed. 60% of the participants report that they have adjusted their sexual habits to
include safe sex practices or abstinence, but 40% report that they still sometimes do not
practice safe sex.
Should they be reported?
They are a definite threat to public health, but the study depends on honest answers, once
that confidentiality has been breached it certainly will sour future participants from being
honest. How can we ever gauge the effectiveness of programs and education within certain
communities if participants have to fear potential criminal charges?
Should Science Be Required to Act As a Step in the Penal

Process?
A Real Life Story
A woman in Florida is expecting baby number 3. She appears at a public health department
for prenatal care and agrees to participate in a study for drug use and pregnancy.
She confesses that she has an addiction to cocaine (a known teratogen). She also answers
15
yes to one of the questions asking if she would accept rehabilitative services if they were
available. The information is passed on to the local authorities, her existing children are turned
over to the state, and her in uteri child is taken upon birth and placed in foster care while the
mother is forced into treatment so she can get her children back.
The case goes to court; the mother sues the state of Florida and its public health system for
breach of confidentiality. She loses, based on the required reporting of suspected child abuse.
The case has gone to the Supreme Court.
There are a few ethical issues that are evident in this brief breakdown of this story.
1. Mom disclosed willingly the information, she evidently had not acted in a manner to
bring attention to herself, she disclosed the information believing it would be kept
confidential.
2. The case was brought to court and the argument was that the mother was abusing her
unborn child by snorting cocaine while pregnant hence the defense in reporting based
on the abuse that was purportedly to her unborn child. Can we mandate good health
practices by a pregnant women or risk being charged with child abuse and neglect?
3. Should willing disclosure be punished especially when it is a part of research?
There are many instances of ethical concerns when it comes to confidentiality and privacy
matters in research. As a result of allowing a participants information to be revealed there can
be insurmountable damages, it should only be done when absolutely necessary.
16
4 Using Animals in Research
Animals used for experimentation and research are always a hot topic of debates.
The use of animals in research is prevalent because they share at least 200 common
illnesses and diseases with humans.
Animals are used in research or experimentation in place of human subjects for various
reasons.
Using animals in research affords the scientist to monitor reactions to stimuli and other
variables in complex organs and tissue, while allowing the scientist to minimize environmental
variables.
Animals are used in scientific research to further science in many arenas. They are used most
often in the following cases:
Disease Treatment
Prevention
Treatment of Injuries
Basic Medical Testing
Medical Diagnosis
Animals in research have made possible many scientific breakthroughs that humans benefit
from each day.
Vaccinations
Anesthesia
Antibiotics
Numerous medical treatments for various diseases
Why Animals?
Animals provide the scientist with unique possibilities especially using animals for medical
research.
When experimenting with new drugs for the treatment of disease it would be virtually
17
impossible to isolate a human the way an animal can be isolated. All mammals share the
same systems, there are variants but they are far outweighed by the likeness that humans
and animals share.
There are just certain testing that can not be accomplished without the use of live organs and
tissue. There is no way to duplicate a complex disease in a culture, nor to enable a computer
to completely analyze the effects of drugs on a system. Animals play a vital role in medical
research.
Facts About Animal Research

85 % of the animals used in research are rodents - rats and mice that have been bred
for laboratory use
Most laboratory tests on animals are simple single type tests - change in diet, drawing a
simple blood sample, administering a drug
Animals are given anesthetics if a procedure is going to be invasive in any way
Dogs, cats and non-human primates account for only 3 out of 1000 subjects in
experimentation
Humans are still the largest group that is used for research and experimentation and
beats out all other lab animals when it comes to testing.
The Three R's

A criterion which all scientists must follow is known as the three R's. The three R's in research
refer to the following:
Refinement
Reduction
Replacement
Refinement of testing must be arranged so that animal distress is minimal. The scientist must
reduce the number of animals used in the experimentation whenever possible and if possible,
replace animals with other adequate research methods.
There are animal restrictions in place to insure that animals are not used when not necessary.
When there are other viable models to conduct research those methods supposed to be used
instead of using an animal subject. Only the minimal number of animals is to be used as
subjects in an experiment or research project. Unnecessary research and experimentation is
considered unethical and use of animals is not supported.
The use of animals in research is heavily regulated. The care is mandated through regulatory
18
guidelines and there are heavy damages and fines assessed when these regulations are not
followed. The regulations dictate how the animals will be housed and treated to include
veterinary care, pain management and other measures to make sure the animals do not suffer
through out the course of the experiment.
The scientist needs to get permission from an ethical committee, which have a full description
of the project, before starting any research on animals, to ensure for minimum of suffer among
the animals.
Good Treatment - Good Experiment

All scientists will agree that with good treatment of the animals the experiment will be an
overall better experience. Working with sick or mistreated animals does not benefit anyone,
most scientist take pride in their lab and as part of that lab the animals are treated very well.
Animal welfare is extremely important to the scientific community, if not for the love of the
animal than for the pride of the work.
Explorable.com (May 21, 2009). Using Animals in Research. Retrieved from Explorable.com:
https://explorable.com/animals-in-research
19
5 Stem Cell Research
Pros And Cons in Research
The debate of the pros and cons of stem cell research clearly illustrate the difficult
ethics evaluations researchers sometimes must do.
All scientists must consider whether the positive effects from their research are likely to be
significantly higher than the negative effects.
What are Stem Cells?

Stem Cells are crucial to develop organisms. They are nonspecialized cells which have the
potential to create other types of specific cells, such as blood-, brain-, tissue- or muscle-cells.
Stem cells are in all of our body and lives, but are far more potent in a fetus (also spelled
foetus, fœtus, faetus, or fætus) than in an adult body.
Some types of stem cells may be able to create all other cells in the body. Others have the
potential to repair or replace damaged tissue or cells.
Embryonic Stem Cells are developed from a female egg after it is fertilized by sperm. The
process takes 4-5 days.
What is Stem Cell Research?

Stem cell research is used for investigation of basic cells which develop organisms. The cells
20
are grown in laboratories where tests are carried out to investigate fundamental properties of
the cells.
Aborted fetuses are not

the only source of stem
cells
There are stem cells in the

both placenta and blood
contained in the placenta.
Also the primary source of
stem cells is from
blastocysts. These are
fertilized human eggs that
were not implanted into a
woman.
The controversy surrounding stem cell research led to an intense debate about ethics. Up
until the recent years, the research method mainly focused on Embryonic Stem Cells, which
involves taking tissue from an aborted embryo to get proper material to study. This is typically
done just days after conception or between the 5th and 9th week.
Since then, researchers have moved on to more ethical study methods, such as Induced
Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS). iPS are artificially derived from a non-pluripotent cell, such as
adult somatic cells.
This is probably an important advancement in stem cell research, since it allows researchers
to obtain pluripotent stem cells, which are important in research, without the controversial use
of embryos.
There were two main issues concerning stem cell research with both pros and cons:
1. How the knowledge will be used

2. Concerns about the methods
The first issue is really not just about stem cell research, as it may be applied to most
research about human health.
Since 2007, the second point, concerns about the methods involved, has been less debated,
because of scientific developments such as iPS.
21
1) Stem Cell Research - Arguments Regarding the Usage of the Knowledge
As you will most probably notice, the following arguments are not exclusively in use when
talking about stem cell research.
Pros
Stem cell research can potentially help treat a range of medical problems. It could lead
humanity closer to better treatment and possibly cure a number of diseases:
Parkinson’s Disease
Alzheimer’s Disease
Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1)
Birth Defects
Spinal Cord Injuries
Replace or Repair Damaged Organs
Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a
heart-transplantation in the future
Stem cells may play a major role in cancer
Better treatment of these diseases could also give significant social benefits for individuals
and economic gains for society
Cons
"We should not mess with human life."

"Humans should not be trying to play God"
Some argue that stem cell research in the far future can lead to knowledge on how to
clone humans. It is hard to say whether this is true, but we have seen devastating
consequences of other research-programs, even with good intentions, such as nuclear
research.
2) Stem Cell Research - Pros and Cons About the Methods Involved
The controversy regarding the method involved was much tenser when researchers used
Embryonic Stem Cells as their main method for stem cell research.
22
DISCLAIMER:
These points are based on the old debate about the methods of stem cells research, from
before 2007. Since then, scientists have moved on to use more ethical methods for stem cell
research, such as iPS. This section serves as an illustration of the difficult evaluations
researchers may have to analyze.
Pros Before 2007
"The benefits of stem cell research have such a great outcome that they outweigh the
ethical issues." (Cost-benefit-analysis)
"If someone is going to have an abortion, isn’t it better that we use it for something
useful?"
Adult stem cells would not be that interesting because they do not have the same
properties as stem cells from a fetus.
The research would give great insights about the basics of the body.
Cons Before 2007
Critics against stem cell research argued that the ethical issues of scientific work on
aborted fetuses did not justify the possible benefits.
"A life is a life and that should never be compromised. A fertilized egg should be valued
as a human life even if it is in its very first weeks. Destroying human life in the hopes of
saving human life is not ethical."
We should (and will) develop more ethical methods (such as using adult stem cells)
which will enable us to research ethically. We should wait until those methods are
available.
The scientific value has been overstated or has flaws. E.g. we do not know for sure that
we can use stem cells to clone transplantable organs.
Conclusion
The stem cell-research is an example of the, sometimes difficult, cost-benefit analysis in
ethics which scientists need to do. Even though many issues regarding the ethics of stem cell
research have now been solved, it serves as a valuable example of ethical cost-benefit
analysis.
The previously heated debate seems to have lead to new solutions which makes both sides
happier.
Stem Cell pros and cons had to be valued carefully, for a number of reasons.
When you are planning a research project, ethics must always be considered. If you cannot
defend a study ethically, you should not and will not be allowed to conduct it. You cannot
23
defend a study ethically unless the presumed cost is lower than expected benefits. The
analysis needs to include human/animal discomfort/risks, environmental issues, material
costs/benefits, economy etc.
Why was the debate regarding the stem cell research so intense?
First, it was a matter of life - something impossible to measure. And in this case, researchers
had to do exactly that: measure life against life.
Both an abortion and someone dying, suffering from a possible curable disease, is a tragedy.
Which have the highest value? Does a big breakthrough in the research justify the use of the
method in the present?
Would the benefits of studying abortions outweigh the costs? The choice was subjective:
Nobody knows all the risks or all the possible outcomes, so we had to value it with our
perception of the outcome. Perception is influenced by our individual feelings, morals and
knowledge about the issue.
Second, at the time we did not know whether the research was necessary and sufficient to
give us the mentioned health benefits.
Third, other consequences of the research are uncertain. Could the research be misused in
the future or not? We simply do not know. All knowledge acquired, within research or other
arenas, may be used for evil causes in the future - it is impossible to know.
The Stem cell research-debate is an example on how people value various aspects
differently. It is also an example of how critics and debate can lead to significant
improvements for both sides.
Explorable.com (Mar 20, 2008). Stem Cell Research. Retrieved from Explorable.com:
https://explorable.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons
24
6 Research Regulations
...and the Helsinki Declaration
Research Regulations are a code of ethics that governs how research should be
conducted.
Research is conducted across many disciplines. It is used to define public policy, treatment
protocol even for marketing products.
Research uses different populations and species to gain a broader knowledge of a particular
subject. Each institution sets there own research regulations. Typically there are universal
regulations whether they are legally required or not, than there are cultural mores and rules
and there may also be local rules governing a specific research activity.
Laws governing research are related to safety concerns and handling concerns. Ethical codes
are more in depth codes that scientists are bound ethically to up hold.
Declaration of Helsinki
The Declaration of Helsinki was created by the World Medical Association to set a standard
for the way human subjects are to be treated in experimentation.
This document lays out the requirements for ethical treatment of human subjects, and was
drawn up as an attempt to self-regulate science. It is not a legally binding document but widely
accepted as the ethical cornerstone for the treatment of human subjects.
The inception of the document was in the early 1960’s and started as an 11 paragraph
directive, the first ever of its kind. Since its inception it has had six revisions and an additional
21 paragraphs added.
The Declaration of Helsinki is named after the geographic location where the document was
drawn up, Helsinki Finland. Prior to this document the premier code of ethics was the
Nuremburg Code.
The basic principles of the Declaration of Helsinki are:
Respect for the individual

Respect for the individuals right to make determinations and make informed decisions
25
regarding participation in the research both before and during the research
The individuals welfare always takes precedence over society or scientific needs
Ethical considerations must always take precedence over laws and regulations
If an individual is not able to grant consent or is a minor, than consent for participation
should be sought from the guardian who is acting in the individuals best interest.
Basic principles regarding research in general:
Research should be based on a through knowledge of the scientific background

Research should offer a reasonable benefit to the population involved in the research
Risks and benefits of the research should be carefully analyzed and should not cause
further harm
Research should be conducted by suitably trained investigators
Research findings should be shared and made publicly accessible
Examples
There are other guidelines but the above are the basic principles. Prior to the 1940’s there
were no universal guidelines in place for research practices. Some of the research that took
place then would never be permitted today. Take a look!
One of the most famous is the Tuskegee Study.
And this one is clearly not ethical:
Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, was the code name for a CIA mind-
control research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence,
that began in the early 1950s and continued at least through the late
1960s. There is much published evidence that the project involved the
surreptitious use of many types of drugs, as well as other
methodologies, to manipulate individual mental states and to alter brain
function.
Experiments included administering LSD to CIA employees, military
personnel, doctors, other government agents, prostitutes, mentally ill
patients, and members of the general public in order to study their
reactions. LSD and other drugs were usually administered without the
subject’s knowledge and informed consent, a violation of the
Nuremberg Code that the U.S. agreed to follow after WWII.
Source:
"Top 10 Evil Human Experiments"
26
Two other prime examples are Project 4.1 and the Monster Study.
These studies now seem archaic, and impossible that they could have occurred, but they did
and they took place in the name of science. These examples are prime examples of the need
for a code of ethics that goes beyond what the law lays out. Even with the codes in place
there are still instances where unethical experimentation continues:
From 1990 to 1991 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) conducted a
study of an experimental measles vaccine is Los Angeles, California
involving 1200 children whose parents had not given informed consent
for their children’s participation.
Reference:
Bibliotecapleyades.net
It is incredible that we still have cases of unethical testing even today, but with the research
regulations in place we have a point of reference to recognize a deficiency in the treatment of
research participants. Without a point of reference there would be nothing to compare to.
Explorable.com (Mar 22, 2009). Research Regulations. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

https://explorable.com/research-regulations
27
6.1 Scientific Misconduct
Scientific misconduct is defined as "the violation of the standard codes of scholarly

conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research".
To determine scientific misconduct the code of scholarly conduct would have to be defined.
The code of scholarly conduct is written by each institution to reflect their values but always
contains certain universal ideas:
The treatment of human subjects.

Honesty
Maintaining integrity of all experiments and research
Publishing the research and results
Granting access to others to allow reproduction of the testing
Personal responsibility for the research
Acknowledging others contributions
This is a partial list of the most important factors that are considered to be a typical code for
scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research.
These codes are in place to minimize false reporting and unethical behavior in
experimentation.
What Can Be Considered Cases of Scientific Misconduct?

When it comes to scientific misconduct it has to be intentional and willful. The term is not
thrown around lightly.
There are several cases of scientific misconduct that has hit the media since the 1980's that
has shed some light on the reality of the situation, but to say that scientific misconduct has
only really been around since the 1980's would be false. It is estimated that some of the
greatest minds in science have either fabricated results, or skewed data to support their
theories.
Take a look at these examples:
"Isaac Newton may have adjusted calculations to fit observations."
28
"Gregor Mendel's
experimentally, results with
indicating that pea plantshave
he might werechanged
cleaner the
thandata."
what is observed
"Robert
mention Millikan, in a research
that he eliminated some paper
datadescribing
points." the charge of an electron, failed to
Citations:
Columbia University
If these folks would have published today their research may have been pulled and they
would have lost all credibility. Scientific misconduct can be considered the willful ignorance of
data, evidence of falsifying, skewing of data or deliberate misrepresentation of data. Scientific
misconduct can also be considered the misuse of human subjects (which there are strict
guidelines in place that govern the use of).
In recent cases of scientific misconduct one name clearly stands out from the rest because it
was so fraught with misconduct, not merely one instance but many.
Hwang Woo-Suk has many pages dedicated to him across the internet, if you type his name
into any search engine there will be at least 10 pages of links listed.
Read below for his story:
Hwang Woo-suk was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology

at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who became
infamous for fabricating a series of experiments, which appeared in
high profile journals, in the field of stem cell research.
Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts
in the field of stem cell research, best known for two articles published
in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 where he fraudulently reported
to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning.
Both papers were later editorially retracted after they were found to
contain a large amount of fabricated data. He has admitted to various
charges of fraud. On May 12, 2006 Hwang was "indicted on
embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to faked stem cell
research."
Cited from the article about the scientific misconduct of Hwang Woo-Suk
on Wikipedia.
What motivated this brilliant scientist to commit scientific misconduct so flagrantly? It would
seem the short answer is MONEY!
29
Of course not every case of scientific misconduct is reported as widely, it is a fair estimation to
say that for every once case that is reported there may be as many as ten cases that go
unreported. Punishment for scientific misconduct can range depending on the severity of the
misconduct.
Take a peek at these headlines:
"MIT Fires Professor Van Parijs for Using Fake Data in Papers" as reported in The Tech
"Panel Says Bell Labs Scientist Faked Discoveries in Physics" - NY Times reporting
about Dr. J. Hendrik Schön
In recent years the incidence of reporting has increased, this may or may not influenced
punishment. In some cases there are criminal charges brought about, but in most cases the
article is retracted by the editor and there is some other punishment prescribed that may
result in the scientist losing credentials and being banned from participating in research.
In more serious cases there may be jail involved.
What to Do If Scientific Misconduct is Suspected?

At some point in a research setting one may come upon research or an article or data that
may seem as if it is part of some type of scientific misconduct.
All the necessary information should be gathered before being presented to the correct
authorities affiliated with the research. This is a serious charge and should not be taken
lightly. If the investigation proves inconclusive, then the benefit of the doubt should be the
order of business.
A formal retraction of the scientific article can be sufficient in putting any misconduct to rest if
an error in reporting is pointed out and proven. However, retracting an article does not
necessarily mean that it will not be cited in other works.
Scientific misconduct can ruin the reputation of a scientist and nullify any research that has
been done with his/her name attached to it, even if there is no question regarding the validity
of that research.
Explorable.com (Oct 25, 2009). Scientific Misconduct. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

https://explorable.com/scientific-misconduct
30
6.2 Science Fraud
As scientists, we like to think that science is a bastion of virtue, untouched by science

fraud.
The perception is that, other than junk science, science should be beyond reproach, unsullied
by lies and propaganda. Results should always be regarded as valid and completely unbiased.
Human nature dictates that scientists are human and are always going to be prone to bias
and error. Most such mistakes are subconscious, and a result of looking too hard for patterns
that are not there.
Unfortunately, there are a number of more sinister cases, where scientists deliberately
fabricated results, usually for personal fame. With the advent of corporate and politically
funded research grants, poor results are becoming more dictated by policy than by scientific
infallibility.
Some of the More Common Types of Science Fraud

There are many types of science fraud, from minor manipulation of results or incorrect causal
connections to full-blown fabrication of results and plagiarism of the work of others.
There have been cases of researchers stealing the work of their students to obtain all of the
credit and kudos.
There is a well-documented rumor of a scientific referee delaying the work of a rival, to ensure
that he received the acclaim and a Nobel award. These allegations are often difficult to prove,
as institutions often cover them up and try to sweep science fraud under the carpet.
Citations are one area of the scientific process that is coming under increased pressure,
especially with the easy availability of information on the internet.
A citation, or reference, is supposed to credit past research that influenced the current
research. Now, a bibliography and list of works cited often becomes a list to impress, readers
assuming that the longer the list, the better the paper.
31
For example, most academics have had a tutor assign an essay and instructed them to use
‘at least twenty references.’ Most students then use 3 or 4 sources and throw in the other 16
to fill the quota, a problem in every academic area, not just science.
It is better to use a few reliable primary sources than rely upon secondary sources, all often
saying the same thing. Supervisors and referees are becoming stricter about quality rather
than quantity, so attitudes should slowly change.
Conversely, not citing the research of others, and stealing ideas, is another common science
fraud. It is very easy to ‘spin’ the words of others, and pass it off as the researcher’s own.
Most scientific papers, especially during the literature review, use other sources, but they
need to be properly cited.
A related type of fraud is where supervisors and funding bodies, who had little direct
involvement in the work, often appear in the title whereas lab assistants, typists and
translators are missed out. To try to evade this practice, it is common to include an
acknowledgements page, to avoid cluttering up the title too much.
Some Famous Science Frauds
Dr. Hwang Woo Suk
For those who remember, this South Korean announced, to a fanfare, that he had
successfully cloned a dog, and also had some success in human cloning. This research was
published, passed the tests and then he was subsequently suspected of fraud and ethical
violations.
He withdrew the paper and, as yet, there is no consensus as to whether the fraud was
deliberate or the result of a badly written paper.
The Piltdown Hoax
This is probably one of the most famous science frauds of all time, which persisted for many
years. A fossilized skull, apparently of the ‘missing link’ between apes and humans, was
discovered in a quarry in Piltdown, Sussex, England. The find was taken to a distinguished
paleontologist, Arthur Smith Woodward, head of the Geological Department at the British
Museum.
He declared the find authentic, but almost straight away, questions were asked, and it
gradually came to light that it was made up from bones of at least 3 hominid species, including
the jawbone of an Orangutan with filed down teeth. Poor Woodward was the victim in this
32
fraud, and his otherwise notable career became forgotten, his name forever linked with the
fraud.
The perpetrators remain unknown, although the discoverer, Charles Dawson is suspected as
an attempt to find fame and fortune.
Institutional Problems
Institutions are often reluctant to discipline wrongdoers, ignoring it, quietly shifting the
fraudster to another department or even disciplining the wrongdoer.
Science has a problem that people are reluctant to risk losing their careers to report science
fraud.
The problem is that it is difficult for reviewers to isolate flawed results without repeating the
experiment themselves.
The Grey Area

The problem is defining what fraud is and what is honest. Scientists, like anybody, can make
genuine mistakes, or be a little eager to see a correlation amongst the randomness.
This is not really fraud, but experimental error, and it would be unfair to be overly critical about
this process. Unfortunately, a scientist’s wages and career are possibly on the line unless they
produce results, and this crosses the line.
Another example of a grey area is in images. Scientists in cell biology, for example, would
often use false color in an image to enhance areas, making it easier for their results to be
seen.
With the increasing sophistication of graphics programs, there have been implications that this
image enhancement has actually been used to manipulate images and show what is not
there. Many scientific bodies now advise against enhancing images, because it leaves the
researcher open to accusations.
The Review Process – Is it Flawed?

The fact is that, despite a few high profile cases, the scientific peer review process is fairly
sturdy.
33
Reviewers pick out the worst of the fraud and replication of the experiment will pick out the
aberrations and cases where genuine mistakes have been made.
A major shift in scientific beliefs does not happen with one paper, however groundbreaking
the research. Hundreds of papers are required for the scientific community to accept
something as ‘proof’.
A paper selectively using a few citations will eventually caught out and copyscape and other
tools are making it easier to detect plagiarism.
Journals are starting to encourage an acknowledgments page, where the many people
contributing to the research can have some recognition, from the copywriter to the lab
technician.
A far more sinister process than failures in the system is the increasing amount of private
research funding in the quest for research grants.
The Global Warming debate is one area where the genuine science has been swamped in a
sea of conflicting interest, and it has moved into politics rather than science. The quest for
grants has lead to the over exaggeration of the significance of proposals and often research
tied to areas with mass appeal, driving out pure science.
Scientists are paid according to the number of papers that they produce, and this leads to
rushed and shoddy science, as well as discriminating against female researchers who take
maternity leave or work part time to juggle bringing up children and work.
Martyn Shuttleworth (Jun 24, 2009). Science Fraud. Retrieved from Explorable.com:
https://explorable.com/science-fraud
34
6.2.1 Subliminal Messages
James Vicary claimed to have introduced subliminal messages with big advertisement
effects in 1957 when he conducted an experiment with very quickly flashing messages
in the movies of a cinema in New Jersey.
The messages projected phrases like "Drink Coca Cola" or "Hungry? Eat popcorn". It was
displayed so fast that people never consciously could notice them.
Vicary claimed that the messages increased the sales of popcorn and Coke.
This started mass hysteria. People were afraid that subliminal messaging was already taking
place in films and was being used to advertise or for propaganda without people knowing it.
People thought if it worked that well, then they're certainly using it for political persuasion. This
gave root to conspiracy theories the government or by communism was using subliminal
seduction to persuade people or mind control.
Many countries banned this type of advertisement.
The only problem was: The experiment NEVER TOOK PLACE; Vicary lied for fame and
fabricated the results. It was a simple scientific fraud.
What are Subliminal Messages?

These are forms of messages which escape our conscious perception, but reach through to
the brain unconsciously. The most normal presentations of subliminal messages are visually
or by audio.
In a visual presentation such as a normal movie, words, phrases, or images are shown quickly
in between the frames of the movie - faster than we can notice consciously. The words,
phrases, or images also can be displayed somewhere on the screen where we would not
normally direct our attention.
So we just watch the movie and think that did not see any hidden messages.
35
Vicary claimed that your brain will notice the message, but not your consciousness. So it
would be much harder to determine that this is an advertisement trying to persuade me. It is
well known that advertisement work better if the person does not perceive it as advertisement.
With subliminal messages, it was supposedly even worse: people would think that the
advertisement was actually something THEY thought of and wanted, not an advertisement,
and thus making it far more likely that people buy the item.
Later research showed that subliminal advertisement (priming) can have some small and
short-lasting effects. There is no evidence that it can persuade people to behave or think very
differently from what they would in the long run.
Lying About Experiments

From time to time there have been scientists or con-scientists claiming to have done
experiments they never have done.
It is a big problem for the science and for the scientists involved.
Science loses credibility and many hours of scientific work are lost. The scientists will almost
certainly never be taken seriously again by the community or the society.
If you make an important discovery or break-through, you can be sure of one thing: Others will
always try to replicate your experiment. This means that they will check if they get the same
finding using the same methods. If it is not possible to check it or if the results are different,
scientist often don't recognize the discovery as important until there is further evidence.
Other Claimed Stunts With Subliminal Messages

Several Walt Disney cartoons were accused of containing hidden sexual meanings, such as in
The Little Mermaid or Lion King. In Lion King, there are some clouds which form the word
"SEX" when Mufasa dies.
In music, many bands have been accused of putting subliminal messages in their songs.
Judas Preist was accused of deliberately try to make youth commit suicide. Beatles was
thought to put "backmasking", messages phonetically reversed, on their Revolver-CD.
Often people reading in their own interpretations in movies, music etc, and believe they are
being misled.
36
Explorable.com (Jan 15, 2009). Subliminal Messages. Retrieved from Explorable.com:
https://explorable.com/subliminal-messages
37
6.2.2 Scientific Falsification
Scientific falsification has been around in the scientific community since the inception
of the idea of scientific experimentation.
This article is about the falsified evidence. For the act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis,
or theory, read the article about
scientific falsifiability.
Falsification in science is loosely defined as publishing or reporting misleading facts

associated with a study, research or experimentation.
Scientific falsification can be considered as:
Falsifying data
Falsifying evidence
Fabricating data
Fabricating evidence
Plagiarism
Falsifying data can be as simple as not accounting seriously the margin of error in a study or it
can be as extreme as knowingly changing data to support the hypothesis.
Falsifying evidence is very rarely accidental and is usually done to support a hypothesis.
Fabricating data is literally making up data. Perhaps it is mentioning an event that did not
occur or reports a population that was not used.
Fabricating evidence is also literal; the researcher makes up evidence that does not exist.
Plagiarism is also considered scientific falsification, if a part of the work reported is taken from
another source without proper citation, the report or paper can be deemed as scientific
falsification.
All of these key events are considered scientific falsification, either standing alone or
combined. This misconduct is considered the ultimate misconduct in the research community.
The offender is often stripped of his credentials and because of the tight knit nature of the
scientific community even if the credentials are not stripped the researcher may never find
38
work as a researcher again. It will impact the ability to secure funding in the future.
Cases
Several cases in point were reported in a public notice of determinations by the Office of
Research Integrity (ORI)
"Raphael B. Stricker, M.D., University of California at San Francisco.

An investigation conducted by the University found that Dr. Stricker
falsified data for a manuscript and a PHS-supported publication
reporting research on AIDS.
In the manuscript, Dr. Stricker selectively suppressed data that did not
support his hypothesis, and reported consistently positive data
whereas only one of four experiments had produced positive results. In
the publication, Dr. Stricker reported that an antibody was found in 29 of
30 homosexuals, but not found in non-homosexuals.
However, Dr. Stricker's control data, which he suppressed, showed the
antibody in 33 of 65 non-homosexuals. The falsified data was used as
the basis for a grant application to the National Institutes of Health. The
ORI concurred in the University's finding. Dr. Stricker executed a
Voluntary Exclusion and Settlement Agreement in which he has agreed
not to apply for Federal grant or contract funds and will not serve on
PHS advisory committees, boards or peer review groups for a three year
period beginning April 1, 1993."
Also reported in the same notice:
"Tian-Shing Lee, M.D., Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School.

An investigation conducted by Harvard found that Dr. Lee, a former
post-doctoral fellow at the Joslin Diabetes Center, fabricated and
falsified data in research on diabetes supported by the National Eye
Institute. Primary data was missing for almost half of the figures and
tables in a series of published papers and manuscripts prepared by Dr.
Lee.
Many instances of data fabrication and falsification were found,
including presenting data for cell counts that were never performed,
indicating that multiple data points were determined when in fact only a
single data point was obtained, eliminating the highest or lowest values
in sets of experimental readings, alteration or transposition of data to
achieve a desired experimental result, and misrepresentation of the time
intervals at which data was collected.
The Office of Research Integrity concurred in the University's findings.
Dr. Lee has been debarred from receiving Federal grants or contracts
and is prohibited from serving on Public Health Service Advisory
39
Committees, Boards, or peer review groups for a five year period
beginning April 18, 1993.
Harvard University notified the four scientific journals which had
published papers containing data fabricated or falsified by Dr. Lee that
the papers should be retracted."
Another report from the same source notes:
"James H. Freisheim, Ph.D., Medical College of Ohio.

An inquiry and an investigation conducted by the University found that
Dr. Freisheim had submitted a research grant application to the National
Institutes of Health which contained substantial portions plagiarized
from another scientist's grant application.
Dr. Freisheim had served as an assigned reviewer of the other
scientist's application when it was reviewed about two years earlier by
an NIH Study Section.
During the inquiry, Dr. Freisheim produced a handwritten draft of the
plagiarized material that he claimed he had written before the other
scientist had submitted his grant application, and that therefore the
other scientist had plagiarized Dr. Freisheim's work. The investigation
reviewed the handwritten draft and concluded that it had been written
much later than purported by Dr. Freisheim, possibly during the inquiry
to establish the basis for his defense.
The investigation also concluded that Dr. Freisheim had plagiarized
material for two post-doctoral fellowship applications to the NIH. The
ORI concurred in the University's findings, and Dr. Freisheim has been
debarred from receiving Federal grant or contract funds for a period of
three years beginning May 5, 1993.
He has also been required, for a ten year period beginning May 5, 1993,
to certify that future applications for research support submitted to the
PHS are his own work, and he has been prohibited from serving on PHS
Advisory Committees or review groups for the same period."
What are the Effects of Scientific Falsification?

Society as a whole is greatly dependent upon the scientific community to provide direction.
Direction is received from the scientific community in every aspect of society.
40
The medical industry depends on valid research to determine best treatment plans, when
evidence of efficacy is falsified it effects directly how a patient will be treated for a specific
illness. This is probably the most dangerous aspect of scientific falsification. Falsifying data
and falsifying evidence can be extremely dangerous in this setting.
Even the simplest day to day things that every culture and society experience, are brought
about by what is to be believed as valid research. How businesses conduct their business is
backed by research, consumerism is backed by research. How schools teach their students is
effected by research. Just about every aspect of society as we know it is formed by research.
People are greatly influenced by what is reported in the media. The media uses facts and
figures to validate their reporting, those facts and figures are based on others research. If the
research has been falsified and presented, it affects everyone everywhere.
What Causes Scientific Falsification?

Why would a person that is considered top in his/her field fabricate results or falsify data? This
is a hard question to answer.
Pride may be a primary motivator. Perhaps the researchers pride is such that they just have to
be right. It may be that they so believe in the hypothesis and believe that it should be an
accepted theory that they are willing to risk their career on it.
Money is also a huge motivator, funding is normally based on results, unfortunately. If the
researcher feels that funding may be cut if the results cannot be proven in the favor of the
financier of the project this may promote dishonesty in reporting.
The researcher may perceive that falsifying data may not impact the overall study. It may also
be perceived that falsifying evidence that supports the actual outcome does not actually
impact the outcome and is not truly dishonest but more of a means to amp up the actual
findings.
There may even be instances where the researcher is dependent upon assistants for valid
reporting and this information may be falsified. If the head researcher doe not check the data
as presented and uses that data to report the findings, and the data is not accurate, this too is
considered scientific falsification.
Ultimately it is up to the author to be sure what is being reported is accurate and not based on
falsified information.
Scientific falsification goes against everything that the scientific method stands for. It is
unethical, immoral and dangerous. It is one of the worst acts that anyone in research can
41
commit. It is severely punished.
Explorable.com (Aug 5, 2010). Scientific Falsification. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

https://explorable.com/scientific-falsification
42
6.3 Research Grant Funding
Research grant funding is a must to keep a scientific project advancing. It costs money
for materials and equipment in addition to personnel to undertake a research project.
Where does Funding Come From?

The common belief is that research grant funding comes from governments, for example the
National Institute for Health Sciences.
In the US, it generally only accounts for about 36% of the funding, and the majority of that
budget is spent on basic research and military research and development. There is some
funding that comes from non profit organizations like The American Cancer Society and other
like non profits.
The largest research funding comes from private companies. It is also a common myth that
funding is granted based on a competitive criteria; this may be true in certain arenas but not in
all.
Of the corporate entities offering research grant funding the pharmaceutical companies are
the largest.
The Influence of Funding On Research

Let's start by saying money does matter. It matters in every sector including science. Even if
the researcher has a pure love of the scientific method, given the right circumstances, such as
pride or the right amount of money, there may be some consideration given to skewing the
data or holding back on publishing results for a little longer than they should.
There are quite a few ethical concerns with privately funded research where a profit is at risk.
We will use a pharmaceutical company as an example. There are rigorous requirements in
the United States regarding pharmaceutical trials; the process can take up to ten years.
43
There is a lot of money invested in research and development of drug companies it is the
back bone of their structure. This need to produce positive results can make or break a drug
company. The pressure is tremendous to produce the results that are hypothesized will be
produced.
Again money matters, the public at large and the medical community depend heavily upon the
pharmaceutical industries to provide direction for drug use. They gain much of this information
from published reports concerning research.
It is difficult for the researcher to remain impartial when there is pressure that is directly tied to
income to produce a positive correlation between a drug and a disease. The researcher is
bound to feel a certain amount of intimidation especially if there has been a long ongoing
professional relationship between him and the pharmaceutical company.
If there is a long ongoing relationship between the scientist and the pharmaceutical company
this may invoke feelings of loyalty from the scientist toward the pharmaceutical company. The
scientist may be an employee of the pharmaceutical company and the grants maybe awarded
within the company for merit and dedication to the company.
Unfavorable findings may be perceived to be a certain death sentence to receive any further
financial support for research. This scenario not only would compromise the scientific method
but could also potentially result in drugs hitting the market that either lack effectiveness or are
potentially dangerous to the public.
What Types of Bias is Present in Private Sector Research?

According to the AMA:
"When control lies with the commercial rather than academic or public
sector, bias can also envelop the process through the trial design,"
The report stated:
"Outcome bias can result from the use of unreliable methods or

instruments, as well as inadequate sample size or comparison groups."
Sample size
Delay in publishing unfavorable results
44
Unreliable methods
Control group issues
Skewed data
No one of the aforementioned are really scientific misconduct but will affect the outcome of
the research and can be interpreted to mean that there was some misconduct present.
There are other biases in privately funded research like delaying the publication of
unfavorable data until after favorable data is published, this too cannot be called out and out
misconduct because it is hard to prove but certainly does have the undertones of being
misconduct.
What Can Be Done to Avoid Funding Bias in Research?

The private sector companies that would like to provide research dollars should be governed
by law to do the following:
Instead of research being contracted it should be granted, the company should not be
allowed to prevent publication of the results.
Language in research is a factor and this too needs to be considered.
Bonuses for work completely early should not be a motivator in research
There should be as little contact between the researcher and the company as possible
The amount of trials should be limited.
The reporting period should be clearly outlined in the funding agreement, and both parties
should be held to the time frame within reason. Remove the bonus factor will cut the risk of
bias by nullifying the reward for speedy work.
Of course funding bias can be completely eliminated by only allowing research grant funding
to come from the public sector, but again money matters, and the public sector does not have
enough money to support all the research that needs to take place.
Explorable.com (Feb 8, 2009). Research Grant Funding. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

https://explorable.com/research-grant-funding
45
7 Competition in Science
Science can be a really nasty business. Competition in science is a necessity; it

promotes a drive within the scientific community to excel.
Unfortunately as with any open competition it also promotes some not so favorable traits as
well.
All the things we are taught about in school regarding how to treat science and even how to
treat others is blown away in real life experience.
Scientists horde their work, keep their data secretive, they don’t like to discuss their projects
until it is time to publish and present. They can be down right paranoid. There are labs that
are controlled by armed guards. This atmosphere is definitely not the atmosphere that is
expected.
Science is meant to be shared, ideas are supposed to be kicked around amongst scholars to
gain different perspectives and different input.
What on earth is going on?
The Race to Win

The starter pistol goes off and people scatter, running toward the finish line, almost every race
starts with some type of event that indicates the race is starting. The crowds cheer their
favorite contender along until the finish line. This is what has become of science.
The race usually starts with the announcement of funding. Once that whistle is blown people
(scientists) start to gather around the starting line, vying for the funds.
This is where some of the nasty stuff starts, in order to be awarded those funds you have to
be better than the rest at the starting gate. A few well placed rumors; maybe a few reminders
of research gone bad could help in these first few steps forward. This is where science can
get real ugly.
Scientists are compelled to protect their work so that they can be the first to discover whatever
it is they set out to solve or discover. Science is fueled always by a need.
46
Research is always geared to solve some type of problem regardless of the size of the
problem. Solving a problem first can gain additional funding for future projects, bolsters the
standing of the scientist within the research community and will lead to future recognition in
the field.
Scientist are People Too

Scientists are supposed to be impartial observers, experts at collecting data and interpreting
the same.
Of all the occupations the world over these folks are supposed to be amongst the most ethical
in their work, as a matter of fact ethics is demanded in all the sciences.
So what would make a researcher go bad?
How can there be stories in the media of stolen work? Very simply, scientists are people too.
They are fallible. There is a great pressure to publish that is the only way work can be
recognized is by sharing it.
There is also a drive to succeed based on several aspects:
Positive peer recognition

Financial gain
Supervisor recognition
Self efficacy
Self esteem
Pride
These are all very intrinsic human emotions that have to be considered.
Think about this scenario. Dr. Tom has worked on stem cell research for thirty years, he is
very close to identifying a key component for cloning stem cells, he has maintained the same
data base for 25 of those 30 years, keeping meticulous data. He works all day heads home;
his favorite journal arrives in the mail, and there in lays an article regarding stem cell research.
He reads through the article and finds that much of his data is presented which has been used
to clone stem cells. The author has received much accolades for being the first to solve the
problem, he is published and up for an award. Dr. Tom has spent his entire career focused on
this problem, and now he can never be first all he can hope to do is duplicate someone else’s
work, which really is so similar to his own, that his work has been nullified.
Questions may arise as to how did this other scientist have Dr. Toms data, and he may
47
pursue the answer, or he may not, he may not want to be perceived as being jealous or
vindictive. It may be that the data only looks very similar to his own. It may be coincidence but
whatever it is Dr. Tom is pretty much out of a job.
This hypothetical scene is just to bring home the point that winning is not only about
recognition and accolades it is much deeper. It goes beyond just the feel good responses; it
can literally make or break a scientist. A life of devotion to research can be wiped out with one
article. "The primary currency of academia is fame, and fortune follows fame," says Lita
Nelsen, director of MIT's Technology Licensing Office.
"That's the game - publication. It's not about the money. Being second in
academic findings is being last. There is no second in academia."
This quote just about sums it up, except Ms. Nelsen is more optimistic about the roll finances
plays than most are.
Spies and Moles

Labs are high security institutes now because of the competition that exists. They are loaded
down with security equipment. There are some labs that are so secretive that they are
protected by armed guards. The latest technology available is used to control access points.
Although it seems like the tactics and the day to day activities in some labs are straight out of
a James Bond movie, there maybe good reason to take these precautions. Take a look at
these items recently in the news:
Police in New York arrest a former Brown University doctoral student for allegedly
breaking into a lab where he'd worked, deleting files, and stealing computer data,
antibodies, and a herpes virus. He later confesses that he acted to prevent someone
else from getting credit for his work. (Boston Magazine, Stealing Science)
A California state court jury has ordered Pfizer to pay $38 million to a medical research
firm for stealing trade secrets to develop the Bextra painkiller, which eventually was
taken off the market. Jeffrey Frenster, the jury foreman, said there was a mountain of
evidence that showed Pfizer improperly secured a treasure trove of medical research
that had taken decades to develop. During three days of deliberations, Frenster said,
jurors concluded Pfizer conspired with Hsu to use the data without paying tens of
millions of dollars through a contract.
“We feltwhat
exactly therewas
wasgoing
compelling evidence
on there,” thattells
Frenster Pfizer
theatpaper.
some level knew
The lawsuit alleged Pfizer approached the foundation in 2002 to
use its renowned database in clinical trials on Bextra, a Cox-2
48
inhibitor, a class of drugs that includes Pfizer’s Celebrex and
Merck’s Vioxx. Mangano’s data on cardiovascular issues was
considered crucial because of concerns the drug might pose heart
risks which, in fact, prompted Pfizer to withdraw Bextra.
But according to court documents, Pfizer and the foundation could
not agree on terms for use of the database. The lawsuit alleged that
Pfizer arranged a side contract with Hsu, a lead statistician who
provided the data without approval.
Citation: www.pharmalot.com.
These two cases illustrates how fierce the competition really is, and how willing big business
is to undermine someone else’s research to promote their own.
Does Competition Really Fuel Bad Science and Bad

Behavior?
In an utopist society everyone would share. Everyone would be equal. There would be no
competition to be the best. The reality is a bit different.
Competition to be perceived as the best is very fierce regardless of the field, but in a field
where your livelihood depends on it, it takes on new meaning. It is very hard to expect that
there will not be a certain amount of dishonesty generated by the need to win.
The fear of not being able to publish findings first can promote a lot of bad science.
Shortened length of the project

Smaller control groups to get through the research quicker
Misrepresentation of data
Plagiarism
Falsifying data
There is no easy way around scientific competition; it seems to be a necessary motivating

factor for people to be motivated, to strive to do better than scientist before them.
Ideally the gusto that one has when they first discover a love for discovery would remain in
tact, but it seems that after just a few short years, the attitude swings from a love of the
research to more practical matters.
Much like first year med students who report at a rate of 65% that they choose medicine to
heal people by the third year that dwindles down to around 38%, with the remainder marking
49
other as their response when asked why they choose medicine.
Perhaps it is intrinsic to have that survival of the fittest drive, maybe we as scientist become
jaded after awhile and hungry for recognition for all those lonely hours in the lab. It is hard to
say what happens, but it is sad but true to say that scientific competition promotes bad
behavior.
Explorable.com (Aug 11, 2009). Competition in Science. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

https://explorable.com/competition-in-science
50
7.1 Academic Plagiarism
Academic plagiarism has a formal definition, but to state it informally simply it is using
someone else’s work as ones own.
It may be unintentional, merely a footnote left out, or missing quotation marks or forgetting
these indicators may be a clever way to fool the reader into thinking the material is original to
the author.
It is illegal, and unethical, but there seems to be an upward trend in this activity. According to
recent studies here is what was determined about the rise in plagiarism:
“A national survey
plagiarizing from published
the internet;in74%
Education Week
ofinstudents found that
admitted that54%
at47% of students
least once admitted
during the to
past school year they had engaged "serious" cheating; and
their teachers sometimes choose to ignore students who are cheating” of students believe
“The
that State of
58.3% of Americans:
high school This Generation
students and the
let someone Next
else (Free
copy theirPress, July
work in 1996)
1969, states
and 97.5%
did so in 1989.”
“A national survey
plagiarizing from published
the internet;in74%
Education Week
ofinstudents found that
admitted that54%
at47% of students
least once admitted
during the to
past school year they had engaged "serious" cheating; and
their teachers sometimes choose to ignore students who are cheating.” of students believe
Reference: www.plagiarism.org/plag_facts (link not working anymore)
Formal Definition
According to the Merriam Webster online dictionary the formal definition is:
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
to use (another's production) without crediting the source to commit literary theft
to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
Academic plagiarism no doubt is very serious stuff. Intellectual property is protected under
government guidelines. It isn’t only a matter of flagrant plagiarism, where a complete passage
is copied without giving credit to the author, but is also considered a crime when the following
occurs:
Improper citation, failure to use quotation marks around a quote, even if a footnote is
added giving credit
If a sentence is used with a few words changed around, but the structure remains the
same
If a document contains so many ideas belonging to someone else even with proper
51
credit, the work is not original and can be considered plagiarism
So What?
The written word is used to gauge a persons experience and achievement, when something is
plagiarized it does not afford the reader a true opportunity to understand the writer, to gauge
progress in academia. Clearly this act impacts the writers learning.
If when presented with a paper an unknowing instructor provides constructive criticism that is
meant for the writer to help improve, it is wasted. The author can never know the status of
their work if it is not their own.
Academic plagiarism affects many people along the way. It obviously affects the person
whose work has been plagiarized by not affording the author credit for hard work. It effects the
person who commits' the plagiarism by not affording the person an opportunity to receive
constructive feedback. By not sharing ones own ideas important milestones are missed. It
effects the efforts of the instructor to gauge the material being taught as useful of not.
Generally academic plagiarism affects the academic community as a whole. Academic

success is based on the ability of the institution to affect both public and corporate policy, with
a high plagiarism rate the institution will lose standing and creditability.
What are the Causes of Plagiarism?

The theories abound as to the causes of academic plagiarism from stress and pressure all the
way down the line to plain out and out will to deceive.
Some experts believe because competition is so great in academia that this stress to do well
promotes dishonesty. The typical A/B grading system compares one student to another, but
there is a learning curve that is not taken into consideration, and this system pits students
against each other instead of allowing students to absorb the material being taught and
presenting it as they understand it.
There is a small movement that believes a pass fail system is much more advantageous over
the A/B system currently in place, and that it would reduce the incidence of plagiarism.
Easy access to papers on the internet seems only to exaggerate the incidence of plagiarism.
There are literally thousands of academic papers and journal articles available on the internet
that it is virtually impossible to check all sources. A craft cut and paste student can easily
combine enough bits and pieces from several different papers that it is virtually impossible to
detect that the paper is not an honest example of ones own work.
52
Than there is the school of thought that says students are just lazy opportunists that will take
advantage of an opportunity to cheat.
The truth probably lies somewhere down the middle.
What Can Be Done to Stop Academic Plagiarism?

This tried and true question evokes passion in academia around the world. There are
complaints from instructors that the administration will not support an instructor in enforcing
the academic plagiarism rules that are set by the institution.
Most instructors do not want to spend their time trolling for information on the internet to check
for cases of plagiarism. They site both time restrictions as the reason they can not double
check all of the papers that are presented and also the fact that they are not investigators but
instructors.
Recognizing academic plagiarism is the first step in helping to get it under control. There are
certain key elements that an instructor should be able to pick up on if a paper has been
plagiarized:
The writing seems to be beyond the scope of the writer

There are phrases or vocabulary that is part of the paper that seems to be of a
professional nature
The writing far exceeds the material that has been taught
The material presented in the text looks familiar
If any of these key points are realized, evidence should be collected to confirm any
suspicions, and discussed with the student. There are search engines on the internet that can
detect plagiarism in all forms to include academic plagiarism.
In most institutions the published punishment for academic plagiarism is expulsion from the
institution this is very rarely enforced. Confronting the student and of course issuing a failing
grade on the paper maybe the only recourse that is a real option.
Diligence is important on the part of the instructors and the administration when it comes to
both detecting academic plagiarism and punishing the same. If the punishment is negative
enough it may reduce future incidence of academic plagiarism. It needs to be addressed as
the very serious problem that it is.
As long as universities and institutions keep their heads in the sand and refuse to address
academic plagiarism as a crime, the activity will continue.
53
Explorable.com (May 10, 2009). Academic Plagiarism. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

https://explorable.com/academic-plagiarism
54
7.2 Sham Peer Review
Sham peer review, is at epidemic proportions in the United States. Peer reviews are
meant to be helping tools, used to help a doctor better perform his duties.
Instead peer reviews have been used as punishment tools, hence the term sham peer review.
Doctors are protected under various laws to prevent them from being litigated against for
publishing an opinion regarding other doctors while acting in the role as mentor or peer.
A doctor that sits in on a peer review board receives immunity from any legal actions. The
definition is broad as to what type of activities are immune, so unfortunately there are many
cases where the power is abused and peer reviews are based on other than scientific or
medical observations.
What Motivates Sham Peer Review?

Motivating factors that precede a sham peer review may include but are not limited to:
Financial gain
Personal dislike
Professional disagreement
Professional jealousy
Bully tactics
Fear of retalitation by other peers (group think)
Punishment for Whistle blowing
Example
Financial gain can be a great motivator especially if there is little or no personal investment.
Let us look at this hypothetical scenario:
Dr. John and Dr. Bob are both up for the same research grant. Dr. John is also up for his peer
review at the hospital that both he and Dr. Bob are affiliated with; Dr. Bob is on the peer
review board. Dr. Bob recommends that Dr. John needs some remedial training because he
has heard complaints regarding misdiagnosis in several of his patients.
55
There is no evidence of this but Dr. Bob’s report. Dr. Bob gets his buddy Dr. Joe to also get on
board and say only a few unkind words. Dr. John is almost guaranteed not to receive the
research grant based on an unfavorable peer review.
This example is of course an exaggeration but the example below is taken right from real life:
This excerpt sums it up rather nicely:
“Sham peer review is also being used by unethical physicians to attack

other physicians so as to eliminate competition. It is a process which is
being driven by money. As reimbursements to hospitals and physicians
decline, sham peer review increases. [...]
Although thousands of patients die every year from preventable errors
which occur in hospitals, many physicians today are afraid to come
forward to report problems in hospitals out of fear that their careers will
be ended by a retaliatory sham peer review. Fewer and fewer physicians
are willing to risk their career and livelihood to protect patients in
hospitals. It is easier and far safer for physicians to simply look the
other way and remain silent.
by Lawrence Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D.

Editor, Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons
Reference:
Private Sector Whistleblowers: Are There Sufficient Legal Protections?"
Sham peer review gives the medical industry a bad name, and leaves a bad taste in the
mouth of many a talented physician.
These punishments that are received from folks that are supposed to be cohorts and assisting
one on the journey through medicine are disheartening and dangerous.
They are a necessary evil but should be viewed as one of only several tools to judge a
doctors abilities, they should not carry the weight that they do given the obvious abusive
practices.
Explorable.com (Sep 16, 2009). Sham Peer Review. Retrieved from Explorable.com:
https://explorable.com/sham-peer-review
56
8 Whistleblowers in Science
Whistleblowers in science have nothing to do with whistles, the term was coined
because a whistleblowing would get someone’s attention and “whistleblowers” also
get someone’s attention.
Unfortunately it would seem that science is not above reproach when it comes to cover ups
and scandals.
A whistleblower is a person that turns to the appropriate authority to report scientific

misconduct.
There are certain laws in place to protect a whistleblower from retaliation. Retaliation can
come in several different forms when someone steps up and tries to report misconduct:
Civil lawsuits
Being fired
Being black listed
Often when a person steps forward to report scientific misconduct the tables are turned, and
the accused institutes a lawsuit for slander. This is maybe the only defense that the accused
has. The accused may try to defend their position by accusing the whistleblower of making up
the information and slandering the good name of the accused.
Being fired from a position because the whistleblower uncovers inappropriate action is also a
familiar punishment for trying to do what is ethically correct to do.
Finally being black listed is another fate the whistleblower may suffer.
There are protections under the law in place to prevent that whistleblower from being on the
receiving end of any punishment for stepping forward. Sometimes these laws work and
sometimes they do not.
A Whistleblower Case
Example from LA Times (by Marla Cone):
57
"Deborah Rice, an award-winning toxicologist, was removed from a
group of experts researching a widely-used flame retardant after
industry lobbyists complained that she was biased. [...]
Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific
panel reviewing the chemical a year ago. Federal records show she was
removed from the panel in August after the American Chemistry
Council, the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to
a top-ranking EPA official that she was biased.
The chemical, a brominated compound known as deca, is used in high
volumes worldwide, largely in the plastic housings of television sets.
Rice, an award-winning former EPA scientist who now works at the
Maine Department of Health and Human Services, has studied low
doses of deca and reported neurological effects in lab animals. Last
February, around the time the EPA panel was convened, Rice testified
before the Maine Legislature in support of a state ban on the compound
because scientific evidence shows it is toxic and accumulating in the
environment and people. [...]
EPA officials removed Rice because of what they called "the perception
of a potential conflict of interest." Under the agency's handbook for
advisory committees, scientific peer reviewers should not "have a
conflict of interest" or "appear to lack impartiality. [...]
EPA documents show that Rice's comments while serving on the panel
focused on technical, scientific issues. For example, she advised the
EPA to consider the cumulative effects of not just deca, but chemicals
with similar neurological effects."
Dr. Deborah Rice had studied deca, a chemical compound, from the public health point of
view. Her job as a member of the EPA panel was to give scientific advice on environmental
matters. She gave an educated warning on the dangers of the chemical compound, and got
insulted and fired for it.
This demonstrates how cruel the world may be for whistleblowers who do unpleasent
discoveries (especially if the consequences of the findings have negative impact on big
business).
Some Famous Whistleblowers

David Graham: A medical doctor and employee of the Food and Drug Adminstration,
Graham is Associate Director of the FDA Office of Drug Safety. Following Merck and
Co’s withdrawal of their pain medication Vioxx in September 2004 for causing an
estimated 27,000 strokes, heart attacks and deaths, Graham told a U.S. Senate hearing
that FDA conflicts of interest left the nation "virtually defenseless" against similar drug
problems.
David Lappa: A nuclear engineer at Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory who
58
resigned in 1998 after 20 years of service, Lappa filed a lawsuit saying the lab retaliated
against him for reporting plutonium-handling violations. He settled a whistle-blower
lawsuit against the lab for $250,000
David Lewis: Lewis was a microbiologist at the EPA for 31 years. In a peer-reviewed
article in Environmental Science and Technology he showed that pathogens could easily
remain undetected in untreated sewage sludge. Since the government is pushing the
use of this sludge for agricultural fertilizer, Lewis was harassed and finally fired in May of
2003. At a hearing on the role of science in shaping public policy he charged the EPA
with "corrupt[ing] the scientific peer review process in order to support certain political
agendas and further the agency's self-interest."
Bruce Boler: Boler, an EPA biologist, resigned in 2003 to protest the acceptance by the
EPA of a developer-financed study that concluded that wetlands give off more pollutants
than they absorb. The study suggested that golf courses and other developments would
be better for the environment.
All of the above was taken from sourcewatch.org
In each of these examples the whistleblower was protecting the well being of the public
through honest reporting.
Science is built on checks and balances. Why would someone be punished for shedding light
on a potential harmful practice, or misconduct?
Clearly a whistleblower is typically punished because the information can cut into profits, can
stall progress and effect public policy and opinion of a project.
Coloring the whistleblower as disgruntled, troublemaking and an out an out liar are tactics
used to discredit the whistleblower and to make the opinion of the whistleblower less likely to
be believed.
Using punishment tactics can be used to provide a lesson to future whistleblowers, resulting in
the likelihood that a scientist will turn the other check when scientific misconduct is suspected.
Explorable.com (Jul 14, 2009). Whistleblowers in Science. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

https://explorable.com/whistleblowers-in-science
Thanks for reading!

Explorable.com Team
Explorable.com - Copyright © 2008-2015 All Rights Reserved.
59

Ethics in Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics in Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published on Explorable.com (https://explorable.

6.3 Research Grant Funding

Cover design by Explorable / Gilli.me.

Ethics in research are very important when you're going to conduct an

Research - Cost and Benefits-Analysis

Ethical Standards - Researchers Should...

Whistleblowing is one mechanism to help discover misconduct in research.

How to cite this article:

Examples of Deception and Research

The Stanford Prison Experiment and the BBC Follow Up.

The Piliavin and Piliavin Experiment - Public Deception and Research

See also: Bystander Apathy Experiment

The Difficulty of Balancing Deception and Research

How to cite this article:

All three of these studies broke the rules in different ways.

How to cite this article:

We now know that syphilis is curable just treating it with penicillin.

1. There was no informed consent.

How to cite this article:

Explorable.com (Oct 9, 2008). Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

Privacy in research refers to the confidentiality afforded to participants in the research.

Why is Confidentiality Important in Research?

Considerations for confidentiality should be given to the following:

Nature of the response.

There may only be a perception of punishment for participation if confidentiality is not

When is Confidentiality not an Issue

A study is being conducted looking at the effectiveness of a drug on depression. The

Should they be reported?

Should Science Be Required to Act As a Step in the Penal

A Real Life Story

Facts About Animal Research

The Three R's

Good Treatment - Good Experiment

How to cite this article:

What are Stem Cells?

What is Stem Cell Research?

Aborted fetuses are not

There are stem cells in the

1. How the knowledge will be used

"We should not mess with human life."

Pros Before 2007

Cons Before 2007

How to cite this article:

The basic principles of the Declaration of Helsinki are:

Respect for the individual

Basic principles regarding research in general:

Research should be based on a through knowledge of the scientific background

One of the most famous is the Tuskegee Study.

And this one is clearly not ethical:

How to cite this article:

Explorable.com (Mar 22, 2009). Research Regulations. Retrieved from Explorable.com:

Scientific misconduct is defined as "the violation of the standard codes of scholarly

The treatment of human subjects.

What Can Be Considered Cases of Scientific Misconduct?

Take a look at these examples:

"Isaac Newton may have adjusted calculations to fit observations."

Read below for his story:

Hwang Woo-suk was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology

Take a peek at these headlines:

In more serious cases there may be jail involved.

What to Do If Scientific Misconduct is Suspected?

How to cite this article:

Explorable.com (Oct 25, 2009). Scientific Misconduct. Retrieved from Explorable.com: