Shamoo and resnik responsible conduct of research free download

Presenting the results of research. Various statistical methods have been used to test for agreement. The system can't perform the operation now. Try again later. Citations per year. Duplicate citations. The following articles are merged in Scholar. Their combined citations are counted only for the first article. Merged citations. The term research ethics refers to the ethics of planning, conducting, and reporting research. Dunigan, and Shamoo, A. Irving, D. Lockwich, T. Cao, C. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, He has injected the drug in all 50 mice but has not completed all of the tests.

He therefore decides to extrapolate from the 45 completed results to produce the 5 additional results. Many different research ethics policies would hold that Tom has acted unethically by fabricating data. If this study were sponsored by a federal agency, such as the NIH, his actions would constitute a form of research misconduct , which the government defines as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" or FFP.

Actions that nearly all researchers classify as unethical are viewed as misconduct. It is important to remember, however, that misconduct occurs only when researchers intend to deceive : honest errors related to sloppiness, poor record keeping, miscalculations, bias, self-deception, and even negligence do not constitute misconduct.

Also, reasonable disagreements about research methods, procedures, and interpretations do not constitute research misconduct. Consider the following case:. T has just discovered a mathematical error in his paper that has been accepted for publication in a journal. The error does not affect the overall results of his research, but it is potentially misleading. The journal has just gone to press, so it is too late to catch the error before it appears in print.

In order to avoid embarrassment, Dr. T decides to ignore the error. T's error is not misconduct nor is his decision to take no action to correct the error. Most researchers, as well as many different policies and codes would say that Dr.

T should tell the journal and any coauthors about the error and consider publishing a correction or errata. Failing to publish a correction would be unethical because it would violate norms relating to honesty and objectivity in research. There are many other activities that the government does not define as "misconduct" but which are still regarded by most researchers as unethical. These are sometimes referred to as " other deviations " from acceptable research practices and include:.

These actions would be regarded as unethical by most scientists and some might even be illegal in some cases. Most of these would also violate different professional ethics codes or institutional policies. However, they do not fall into the narrow category of actions that the government classifies as research misconduct. Indeed, there has been considerable debate about the definition of "research misconduct" and many researchers and policy makers are not satisfied with the government's narrow definition that focuses on FFP.

However, given the huge list of potential offenses that might fall into the category "other serious deviations," and the practical problems with defining and policing these other deviations, it is understandable why government officials have chosen to limit their focus. Finally, situations frequently arise in research in which different people disagree about the proper course of action and there is no broad consensus about what should be done.

In these situations, there may be good arguments on both sides of the issue and different ethical principles may conflict. These situations create difficult decisions for research known as ethical or moral dilemmas. Wexford is the principal investigator of a large, epidemiological study on the health of 10, agricultural workers. She has just published a paper on the relationship between pesticide exposure and PD in a prestigious journal.

She is planning to publish many other papers from her dataset. She receives a request from another research team that wants access to her complete dataset. They are interested in examining the relationship between pesticide exposures and skin cancer. Wexford was planning to conduct a study on this topic.

Wexford faces a difficult choice. On the one hand, the ethical norm of openness obliges her to share data with the other research team.

Her funding agency may also have rules that obligate her to share data. On the other hand, if she shares data with the other team, they may publish results that she was planning to publish, thus depriving her and her team of recognition and priority. It seems that there are good arguments on both sides of this issue and Dr.

Wexford needs to take some time to think about what she should do. One possible option is to share data, provided that the investigators sign a data use agreement. The agreement could define allowable uses of the data, publication plans, authorship, etc. Another option would be to offer to collaborate with the researchers. The following are some step that researchers, such as Dr.

This second edition of this book includes new chapters and cases and has been brought up to date on the latest issues and problems in research ethics. Keywords: research ethics , responsible conduct , data , scandals , falsification , fabrication , plagiarism , conflicts of interests , human subjects , animals.

Forgot password? Don't have an account? All Rights Reserved. OSO version 0. Shamoo is the Editor-in-Chief of Accountability in Research. David B. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Academic Skip to main content.

Search Start Search. Choose your country or region Close. Dear Customer, As a global organization, we, like many others, recognize the significant threat posed by the coronavirus. Please contact our Customer Service Team if you have any questions.