7.

1 Ethics in science

Site: Monash Moodle Printed by: Jessie Kit Ern Chua

SCI2010 - Scientific practice and communication - Malaysia Date: Wednesday, 21 April 2021, 5:36 PM
Unit:
S1 2021
Book: 7.1 Ethics in science
 Table of contents

1. Ethics

2. How ethics relates to and regulates science?

3. Ethics in academia

4. Human ethics

5. Animal ethics

6. Biosafety

7. Other ethical considerations in science

8. Case studies

9. Sources
 1. Ethics

Ethics Overview
It’s easy to identify unethical behaviour in others, but are you able to detect it in yourself?

Have you ever told a lie and then felt terrible about it for days afterwards? That prickling
sensation is likely your conscience prodding you about a lapse in ethical judgement. Our
beliefs and actions are underlain by our own code of ethics that requires us to take
responsibility for our choices. Humans can act against their nature to bring about an outcome
that ‘should happen’ rather than just letting things happen.

Ethical considerations can be classified into three categories:

Personal ethics

This is the list of values and morals that you believe.

These values and morals are influenced by family, friends, culture, religion and education, among other factors.
These values may change over time (e.g. more life experience, knowledge, etc.)

Common ethics

This is the list of values and morals that the majority of people agree on.
Common ethics are general in nature - this makes it easier to agree on common values and morals.
Common ethics is population dependent. For example, some countries have a death penalty, while others may be against capital
punishment.
Common ethics can be situation-dependent. For example, murdering in self-defence would receive a less severe punishment than
murder.

What are some examples of cases where personal ethics may come into conflict with common ethics?

Professional ethics

This is the list of rules imposed by a company or government on a specific profession.

Journalists, doctors, lawyers and researchers all have an ethical code of conduct.

What are some examples of cases where personal ethics may come into conflict with professional ethics?

Theoretically, the ethically best outcome to an ethical dilemma is the one that best addresses what is good, right and consistent with the
nature of the dilemma. Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral cognitive development consists of three stages of moral reasoning.

1. What's in it for me?

2.  What does culture or society say?

3. To what contract would I be a party? What do universal moral principles demand?

If you have questioned or defended your values then you have exercised your own ethics.

Without trust, there cannot be good science.

The US Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2000, defines research misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in
proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” but not “honest error or differences of opinion”. 
 2. How ethics relates to and regulates science?

Overview
The history of scientific ethics can be dated back to 1620, when Francis Bacon published The Novum Organon and argued that first and
foremost humanity should benefit from scientific research. The world’s first scientific journal (The Philosophical Transactions) was first
published in 1665, but it was not until 1752 that the Royal Society of London instituted peer review procedures.  England continued to
dominate the development of scientific ethics, with Charles Babbage’s Reflections on the Decline of Science and Some of its Causes,
including reference to ‘cooking’ and ‘fudging’ data (1830).

Some of the best-documented breaches of scientific ethics occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s, including

1874: Robert Bartholomew inserts electrodes into Mary Rafferty’s skull and used small amounts of electrical currents to cause
movement, and larger amounts to cause pain. Rafferty died shortly after the experiment. 

Rafferty would have been unable to provide informed consent due to being mentally ill. What other subversions of scientific
ethics have taken place here?

1885: The experimental rabies vaccine is administered by Louis Pasteur to nine-year-old Joseph Meister. 

No animal experiments had been carried out and Meister was underage.

1897: Giuseppe Sanarelli injects yellow fever into five patients of which three died.

Consent was not obtained.

1909: Robert Millikan determines the charge of an electron using oil drop experiments. 

Millikan did not report all findings and did not name his student Harvey Fletcher on the paper.

1912: Charles Dawson discovers a skull in Surrey, UK that was thought to be a species in between apes and humans.

Chemical analysis showed this skull to be a forgery. 

1925: The Wisconsin Alumni Foundation was established to support patents and investments owned by The University of
Wisconsin. 
 3. Ethics in academia

Ethics in academia
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is much broader than simply copying someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. It can include submitting work with
missing or incomplete references (dishonest citations), replacing a few pieces of information in a copied piece of work to make it appear
new (inappropriate paraphrasing), or submitting the same piece of work for multiple assessments (self-plagiarism). 

Martin Luther King Jr. is best known for his role as an activist for African-American treatment, but his PhD dissertation had multiple
plagiarised passages. This was difficult to detect at the time, but since has become obvious using plagiarism checkers. Despite
investigations, the panel members decided not to revoke his doctorate. King’s ‘I have a Dream’ speech also shows multiple similarities to
another speech by Achibald Carey Jr.

In 2002 the then vice-chancellor of Monash University was forced to resign over allegations of plagiarism. Professor Robinson argued that
the plagiarism in his three books published in the 1970s was accidental and due to previous pressures to publish. In 2005, David Robinson
was elected chairman of the Victorian Education Research Network.

Why do you think universities have such strong stances against plagiarism?

Collusion

It is easy to confuse collaboration with collusion. Both involve communication, but one is authorised while the other is unethical. Sharing
lecture notes or receiving tutoring for a subject would usually be considered collaboration while sharing a completed assignment is more
likely to result in plagiarism and collusion. Students must always submit their own work unless otherwise specified eg. in a group
assignment.

Can you think of examples of collusion, as opposed to examples of plagiarism?

Contract cheating

Contract cheating involves both collusion and plagiarism because the work is produced through an unauthorised collaboration and the
actual author is not acknowledged. This includes paying or asking someone else to do an assignment for you or asking another person to
take a quiz or exam for you (Bretag et al. 2018). This form of academic misconduct often takes place when a student doesn’t feel
confident in their own abilities to do an assignment or doesn't have enough time to complete it.

How do you improve your confidence in your own abilities?

How do you find the time to complete your assignments?

Fraud

Fraud is equivalent to criminal deception. This may include fabricating or falsifying (including ‘cherry-
picking’) data. Creating false data based on a hypothesis is difficult to justify in the context of research
misconduct. 

Dr. William McBride is likely most famous for linking Thalidomide and birth defects in 1987, however, he
also falsified data to (incorrectly) prove the danger of another drug less than a year later. More recently, in
2001 several physicists noticed problems with data and methods concerning condensed matter research.
Of the 25 papers published by Jan Hendrik Schon, at least 16 had fabricated results. This lead to the
dismissal of Schon and the retraction of the papers.

Cherry-picking data involves excluding data that does not fit the expected pattern. It may also occur if
images have been altered in an unacceptable way. Modern image editing technology has made this such
a rampant problem that in 2002 the editors of the Journal of Cell Biology began testing all images in (c) Skeptical Science (N/D)

accepted papers for modification.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), the ‘Father of Genetics’, cherry-picked his data to support his basic rules of
inheritance. This was ethically problematic, even though his ideas turned out to be correct. 
 4. Human ethics

‘Human research’ is defined in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) as "research conducted with or
about people, or their data or tissue."

In response to some of the medical research atrocities committed during World War II (1939-45), a trial of Nazi leaders took place in
Nuremburg, Germany. The findings from this trial first formed the Nuremberg Code (1947), a list of 10 requirements of human research
detailing consent and minimisation of harm and risk. The Helsinki Declaration (1964) builds upon the Nuremberg code and has been
adopted by researchers around the world. The Helsinki Declaration is regularly updated, as new technologies and experimental practices
require further ethical consideration. It was last updated in 2013.

Don't get confused between the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declaration!

One part of obtaining ethical approval involves how you will get informed consent from your participants. For human participation in
research, informed consent means that the subject has not merely had the aims, procedures, funding arrangements, and expected risks
and benefits explained to them; but that they have understood those explanations and not been subject to any undue pressure. The
informed consent must be in written form and signed by the participant before research can take place.

However, problems arise with obtaining informed consent when performing research on children, the mentally ill, the undereducated, or
prisoners. Should people who will not benefit from the research outcomes be asked to participate?

Recent violations of human ethics include 

1932-1972: Tuskegee Syphilis Study where researchers withheld treatment for the disease and did not inform subjects that they
were in an experiment.

1932-1945: Thousands of Chinese prisoners of war are subjected to biological and chemical weapons experiments by Japanese
scientists.

1953: Watson and Crick proposed the structure of DNA using data taken from Rosalind Franklin.

1956-1980: Hepatitis experiments are conducted on mentally disabled children at The Willowbrook State School.

1963: Milgram’s study on ‘Obedience and Individual responsibility' is published.

1973: Zimbardo undertakes the Stanford Prison Experiment.

We will touch on human ethics a little more next week.

 5. Animal ethics

There are three approaches to animal research:

1. The virtue theory - where it is asked whether participants are flourishing

2. The utilitarian view - where the end justifies the means

3. The deontological view - where animals are afforded the same rights as humans.

To further examine this topic, it is useful to know some history of this debate.

1600s - Rene Descartes defines the difference between animals and humans as
the ability of humans to think complex thoughts (e.g. cogito, ergo sum; “I think,
therefore I am.”). Unlike humans could that can think and are self-aware, animals
were considered non-sentient automata that responded automatically to stimuli and lacked a soul.

1700s - The discussion moves to consider sentience (have senses through which they perceive things) based on religious and other
views.

1800s - Movement to protect animals by the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), antivivisectionists, and
antislavery movements.

1900s - A rise in medical and other biological research significantly increased the number of animals used in experiments. This
allowed major advances in science but also brought about many ethical issues. 

2000s - Fewer animals are used than 30 years ago, and animal research is heavily regulated.

The 3R’s of animal research aim to limit the impact of experiments on animals. The 3R's are Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. 

Replacement refers to changing the design of an experiment that uses animals to one that does not. This could mean using tissue
cultures, computer models, or replacing higher-order animals such as primates or mammals with insects or similar. 

Reduction is the use of fewer animals or gaining more data from the same number of animals. 

Refinement is making sure that the animals are well cared for, with access to food and water, and do not suffer unnecessary pain.
Within the criterion of refinement are the ‘Five Freedoms’ which refer to freedom: 

1. From Hunger and Thirst: access to fresh water and a good diet 

2. From Discomfort: appropriate environment including shelter, resting area 

3. From Pain, Injury or Disease: prevention/treatment 

4. To Express Normal Behaviour: space, facilities, company of the animal's own kind 

5. From Fear and Distress: conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering” 

The animals for which ethics procedures apply are all living non-human vertebrates: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish;
domestic animals; purpose-bred animals; livestock; wildlife; AND live crustaceans (e.g. yabbies, crayfish, and lobsters; BUT NOT brine
shrimps and Daphnia). Higher-order vertebrates, endangered wildlife, and/or more invasive techniques are subject to more stringent
approval (i.e. requires stronger justification) and often take much longer to get ethics approval.

Why do you think animals are still widely used in scientific research?

If you are a researcher who simply observes but does not directly interact with your target species (i.e. observational studies like bird
watching), ethics approval must still be obtained. Certain countries have different standards of ethics when working with animals, so it is
important that you are familiar with the protocols of your country and university. 
Why do you think something as harmless as "bird watching" requires animal ethics approval?

We will cover more about this topic next week.

 6. Biosafety

Genetically modified organisms are becoming the norm, including vitamin A enhanced
Golden Rice (http://www.goldenrice.org/) and canola, cotton, and safflower. However,
research and release of these organisms are still strictly controlled. Back in 1975 the
first Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee was formed to provide guidance on the
use of recombinant DNA experiments and weigh up their benefits and risks. Since
then, Malaysia has put into place the Biosafety Act 2007 and the Regulatory Guidelines
for GMO Field Release 2013. Australia also has strict rules around biosafety in the
form of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and the Gene Technology Regulations 2001.

Biowarfare, including anthrax and bubonic plague, was deployed as recently as 1942.
The Biological Weapons Convention in 1972 outlawed the use of offensive biological
warfare and was ratified by more than 150 countries. Current technologies allow for the creation of pathogens that have the potential to
cause killer pandemics, and multiple nations have continued research in this area. Although the researchers involved are in direct danger,
there are biosafety risks to public health if the pathogens were to leave or escape the controlled research environment. There are
arguments both for and against the development of biowarfare, but regardless there is a requirement for strict biological safety controls. 

Is weapon development (be it biowarfare or otherwise) ethical?

What about the production and/or consumption of products that may harm oneself and/or others, such as tobacco or alcohol products?

We will touch on biosafety ethics a little more next week.

 7. Other ethical considerations in science

Other ethical considerations in science/or on the periphery of science, relates to all science
Manuscript Author ethics 

The inclusion of authors can be problematic as there can (usually) only be one first author who is assumed to have done the most work
associated with the paper. This can be different depending on the discipline, where the group leader may be either the first or last author,
or may not be included on the author list at all. 

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) there are four criteria that each author of a paper should
meet for inclusion on the author list:

1. Significant involvement in study conception/design, data collection/analysis/interpretation; and

2. Involvement in drafting or critically revising the manuscript; and

3. Approval of the final version of a manuscript for publication; and

4. Accountability for accuracy and integrity in all aspects of the research.

Look out for guest, gift, and ghost authorship. Guest authors are often big names in the discipline that have been included to make the
author list appear more impressive. This may also involve gift authorship, where the inclusion on an author list leads to a reciprocal
inclusion on future publications. 

Recently the inclusion of children as first authors on research papers came to light, prompting an investigation by the South Korean
government into this practice. There were at least 29 Korean universities with cases where about half of the papers authored by underage
students were from students that had not had anything to do with the research.

Ghost authorship occurs when someone who should be on the author list is omitted. These authors are often involved in data analysis, but
may also have assisted with writing or otherwise contributed intellectually to the paper.

Why do you think ghost authorship occurs?

Ethics of intellectual property 

Although it often seems as if scientific discoveries remain in a 'bubble' of sorts (only being paid attention to by researchers and isolated
from the rest of the world), many other parties may have an interest in the outcomes. This may include governments or industries. 
Intellectual Property (IP) is “a legal right to control the application of an idea in a specific context (through a patent) or to control the
expression of an idea (through a copyright).” (On being a scientist p. 39). This enables scientists to profit from their idea at the same time
as allowing public access to the research in order to further the concept. 

Digital technologies have made copying and distributing information easier, albeit with significant implications for copyright. Copyrights
do not protect the idea; merely the way in which the idea is expressed. Monash University copies and communicates copyright material
under the educational copying license. Periodically Monash University staff and students are required to note down any photocopying
performed during a three-month period, which then can be used to give fair payment to copyright owners.

Trade secrets are largely used in industry to keep commercial ideas private by marking it illegal for employees to reveal secrets. This does
not prevent the idea from being developed elsewhere and then patented.

How are trade secrets different from patents?

Why would some prefer to go for maintaining a trade secret rather than applying for a patent?

Can you think of any noteworthy trade secrets that aren't patented?

Non-disclosure agreements (NDA) may protect any type of confidential information or trade secrets and are often associated with start-
ups where sharing of information between businesses is essential but potentially dangerous.
Why use an NDA instead of a copyright or patent?

Can you think of any examples of an NDA?

Embargoes protect information in a largely time-sensitive manner and are dictated by a government order prohibiting sales or commercial
activity.

Why use an embargo instead of an NDA?

Can you think of any examples of an embargo?

‘Trademark’ is often synonymous with ‘brand’. A trademark can be  “a letter, number, word, phrase, sound, smell, shape, logo, picture,
movement, aspect of packaging, or a combination of these”. A registered trademark is different from business and domain names, neither
of which grant exclusive rights to a name or similar.

Ethics of funding

Money is an essential component needed for science. Research needs not only consumables and a suitable space for the research to be
carried out - researchers need compensation as well. This may be paid via royalties on inventions, grants or employee bonuses, or as a
wage from their institution. However, funding may be provided by alternative sources such as government or industry funding. Companies
tend to fund studies that will prove favourable to the product they are selling. Thus most journals require researchers to identify their
funding source to help identify any conflicts of interest.

For example, tobacco companies purposefully funded studies that showed that smoking was not a carcinogen. For an interesting look
into this, check out https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

Privacy/Management of data

A final aspect to consider is that of data management and record-keeping. Poor record-keeping can amount to fraud in some cases if data
are recorded incorrectly. All researchers must maintain an accurate permanent record of their work in order for others to be able to
replicate their methods (to prevent fraud) or to prove ownership of the information (Intellectual Property rights).

Depending on the area, data may be entered into bound handwritten notebooks, or stored electronically. Data may be localised to only the
researcher’s own group, university, or publicly shared, such as in the cases of online repositories of astronomical images, protein
sequences, cell lines, and transgenic animals.

Presently, and to a greater extent in the future, the older methods of storing and backing up data may no longer be accessible. For
example, very few computers have drives for floppy disks, and fewer still with the drives available to read the original eight-inch floppy
disks. There is also the problem of software updates rendering old saved files inaccessible.   
 8. Case studies

Introduction
Read through the following five examples of potential ethics violations. Consider the following (where applicable):

1. Were the experiments well designed?

2. Were participants able to give informed consent?
3. Were the participants free from harm?
4. Have the Nuremberg Code or Declaration of Helsinki been violated?

Professor Tony Lasaga

As scientists, we include among our ranks murderers and paedophiles. How should we treat a scientist who is a criminal, but has not
misbehaved as a scientist?

An example of a real life ethical dilemma is the case of Professor Tony Lasaga, of Yale (top-flight university in the USA). Professor Lasaga
submitted a paper for publication in the prestigious journal Geochimica et a Cosmochimica Acta while in prison as a convicted
paedophile. The Editor refused to send his paper out for review because he was a convicted felon. The Associate Editors rebelled and he
put it to a vote by them. It went for peer review and was published.

Some of the issues this incident raises are:

1. Is science moral? (Would we want to know about general relativity if Einstein had been a paedophile?)
2. Should a society journal have a different code of conduct than a purely commercial entity?
3. Should former students/postdoc's/colleague who were co-authors be penalized for his behaviour?
4. Are there some crimes that are so reprehensible as to preclude membership in a scientific community? 
5. Was the editor imposing a western view of morality on his international readership? (for example: should a scientist be shunned
because of his arranged marriage to a 15-year-old girl if early marriage is part of his cultural background?)

Dr Woo Suk Hwang

Another example of fraud in science is that of Dr Woo Suk Hwang. In 2005
Hwang and his team in Korea were the first to clone a dog. The dog was called
Snuppy (Seoul National University puPPY). This achievement was much
heralded and the laboratory, which was already well known within science for
its work on human cloning, became even more famous. The basic procedure
used for both dogs and humans was to harvest eggs, remove the nucleus of the
egg and replace it with the nucleus of an adult cell from a different individual.
The procedure is called somatic cell nuclear transfer (because the nucleus
comes from a general body, or somatic, cell not a germ cell). If this procedure
works, we end up with cells in which the nucleus from the somatic cell is de-
programmed by the egg cell and the new cell starts to behave like an ordinary
embryo (but with different nuclear DNA). The cell is able to give rise to copies
of the organism that was the source of its nucleus – i.e. to clones.

Hwang claimed to have created human stem cell lines from embryos created by this method and to be maintaining them in culture in his
laboratory. He could not attempt to grow the cell lines into cloned babies because of prohibitions on this sort of work in humans.
Prohibitions do not apply to dogs however and Snuppy was the result of an embryo produced by the same general procedure and nurtured
in a surrogate mother (a Labrador). Nature, which published the work on Snuppy, commissioned an independent analysis of his DNA
which showed that Snuppy is a genuine clone. But the human cell lines were a fraud.

This is the timeline for some of the events

Feb 2004 - Hwang’s team declare they have created 30 cloned human embryos and extracted stem cells
April 2005 - Snuppy born
May 2005 - Team says it has made stem cell lines from skin cells of 11 people
Nov 2005 - Hwang apologises for using eggs from his own researchers. Hwang used 2061 eggs in his research and sometimes
took his female research staff to the hospital for these extractions. While the egg donors were paid, some were not informed about
the risks and egg donation or the purpose of the research.
15 Dec 2005 - A colleague claims stem cell research was faked
23 Dec 2005 - Academic panel finds results of May 2005 research were fabricated
10 Jan 2006 - Panel finds 2004 work was also faked
March 2006 - Hwang dismissed from SNU

Hwang’s papers in the high-profile journal Science were retracted. The judgement of the legal system, as distinct from that of the scientific
community, was that Hwang was 'guilty of misappropriation of research grant funds and violation of the Law on Bioethics and Safety'
(Hong 2016). They also concluded that his dismissal from the Seoul National University was justified on the grounds of research
misconduct and embezzlement (Hong 2016). 

Harry Harlow
A series of famous experiments on primates, showing for the first time the essential role that maternal bonding plays in the life of young
primates, involved some borderline experiments. Dr Harry Harlow separated mothers and babies at birth, initially to prevent infection. He
found that the babies developed a lot of behavioural problems and did not parent their own babies well, leading to further experimentation
to examine why these behavioural problems developed in separated infants. His work was an important part of realising, for example, that
human premature babies need to be handled and have skin contact and not just be kept warm and given food. 

If you want to know more about Harlow, you could read the book ‘Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection’ by
Deborah Blum.

Stanley Milgram
One of Milgram’s interests was the way that defendants at the Nuremberg trials defended their actions. Their defence was often that they
were obeying the orders of their superiors, and therefore bore no responsibility themselves.

In Milgram’s experiment, so-called "teachers" (who were actually the unknowing subjects of the experiment) were recruited by Milgram.
They were asked to administer an electric shock of increasing intensity to a "learner" for each mistake made during the experiment. The
fictitious story given to these "teachers" was that the experiment was exploring the effects of punishment (for incorrect responses) on
learning behaviour. The "teacher" was not aware that the "learner" in the study was actually an actor - merely simulating discomfort as the
"teacher" increased the electric shocks.  A diagram showing the experimental set up is shown below
When the "teacher" became upset by the pain the subjects were experiencing and asked whether increased shocks should be given,
he/she was encouraged to continue. Sixty percent of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt
scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

Dr Philip Zimbardo
Zimbardo was interested in how good people behaved in bad situations. He constructed a prison in the basement of the Stanford
Psychology Department. Volunteers were assigned roles as ‘prisoners’ or ‘guards’. A part of the design involved humiliating prisoners in
various ways (e.g. stripping and searching). The guards did whatever they judged necessary to keep the prisoners in order. The trial was
aborted less than halfway through its planned duration because of psychological damage to prisoners, such as depression, and sadism
on the part of guards.

Criticisms of the experiment include that there were no controls, that Zimbardo was not a neutral observer because he superintended the
experiment, and that it does not enlighten us about behaviour because the volunteers were role-playing.

Zimbardo’s work may help to explain events like those at Abu Ghraib, where US soldiers abused prisoners. It helps us to see why victims
sometimes fail to take what seem to be obvious actions to improve their situation. Therefore, it can be argued that the work has value. On
the other hand, elements of his procedures are apparent in some TV ‘reality’ shows. Is this ethical to manipulate humans in these sorts of
ways for entertainment?

Conclusions
In these examples we see some violations of the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki:

The participants in the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments could not give informed consent and were not free from harm (one of
the five freedoms).
The colleagues of Woo Suk Hwang were potentially coerced into providing samples - they were not free from risk.
The primates in the Harlow experiment were not free from distress, pain, injury, and discomfort, and were unable to express normal
behaviour.
The risk associated with the last four examples and the conclusions reached by the experiments, do not justify initiating the
experiment, violating the Nuremberg Code.
 9. Sources

Further reading for personal knowledge

This page lists the sources that were used to develop your readings for this week. You are welcome to read this material if you would like
further information, however the essential components have been covered earlier in this book.

Multiple sections draw from:

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2009) 'On Being a Scientist: A Guide to
Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition.' (The National Academies Press: Washington).

Ethics overview

Casebeer WD (2019) Scientific ethics. Available at https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-

maps/scientific-ethics [Verified 8 July 2020]

The Ethics Centre (2018) What is ethics? Available at https://ethics.org.au/why-were-here/what-is-ethics/ [Verified 8 July 2020]

Gomez M (2015) Types of ethics. Available at https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-epcc-introethics-1/chapter/types-of-

ethics/ [Verified 8 July 2020]

Resnik DB (2015) What is ethics in research & why is it important. Available

at https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm [Verified 8 July 2020]

Ethics in science

Resnik DB (2015) What is ethics in research & why is it important. Available at

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/timeline/ [Verified 8 July 202]

Sharma OP (2015) Ethics in science. Indian Journal of Microbiology 55, 341-344. doi:10.1007/s12088-015-0532-x

Plagiarism

Rood D (2005) Disgraced academic wins top job with unis. The Age. Available at https://www.theage.com.au/national/disgraced-
academic-wins-top-job-with-unis-20050310-gdzr8g.html [Verified 8 July 2020]

de Palma A (1990) Plagiarism seen by scholars in King's Ph. D. dissertation. The New York Times. Available
at https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/10/us/plagiarism-seen-by-scholars-in-king-s-phd-dissertation.html [Verified 8 July 2020]

Contract cheating

Bretag T, Harper R, Burton M, Ellis C, Newton P, Rozenberg P (2019) Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university students.
Studies in Higher Education 44, 1837-1856. doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788

Fraud

Monash Univeristy (2020) Academic integrity. Available at https://www.monash.edu/rlo/research-writing-assignments/referencing-

and-academic-integrity/academic-integrity [Verified 8 July 2020]

Service RF (2002) Pioneering physics papers under suspicion for data manipulation. Science 296, 1376-1377.
doi:10.1126/science.296.5572.1376

Human research ethics

National Health and Medical Research Council (2018) National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Available
at https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-
2018 [Verified 8 July 2020]

Animal research ethics

 National Health and Medical Research Council (2013) Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes.
Available at https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-care-and-use-animals-scientific-
purposes#toc__1322 [Verified 8 July 2020]

Biosafety

Department of Health (2018) Office of the gene technology regulator science strategy 2013-2018. Available
at http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/science-plan13-18-htm [Verified 8 July 2020]

Evans NG (2018) Ethical and philosophical considerations for gain-of-function policy: The importance of alternate
experiments. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 6, 11. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00011 

Lipsitch M (2018) Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza? Methods in Molecular Biology 1836,
589-608. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-8678-1_29

National Institutes of Health. Recombinant DNA adviisory committee archives. Available

at https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/recombinant-dna-advisory-committee/ [Verified 8 July 2020]

Manuscript author ethics

Committee on Publication Ethics (2016) What to do if you suspect redundant duplicate publication. Available
at https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20English%20flowcharts_9Nov2016.pdf [Verified 8 July 2020]

ICMJE (2020) Defining the role of authors and contributors. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Available
at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-
contributors.html [Verified 8 July 2020]

Gotzsche PC, Hrobjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haar MT, Altman DG, Chan A (2007) Ghost authorship in industry initiated randomised
trials. PLoS Medicine 4, e19. doi:10.1371/ journal.pmed.00440019

Zastrow M (2018) Kid co-authors in South Korea spur government probe. Nature 554, 154-155. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-01512-5

IP and copyright

IP Australia (2019) Trade mark basics. Available at https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-marks/understanding-trade-marks/trade-

mark-basics [Verified 8 July 2020]

Case studies

Hong S-T (2016) We should not forget lessons learned from the Woo Suk Hwang’s case of research misconduct and bioethics law
violation. Journal of Korean Medical Science 31, 1671–1672. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.11.1671

Picture

Skeptical Science (n/d) Cherry picking fallacy. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=87836998. Accessed: Thursday

28th May 2020.