UNIT 3

Ethics in Research

Overview

Ethics in research refers to the guiding principles and norms that are followed in the research
process. Ethics differs from laws in that the ethical researcher might not be arrested or punished
by the legal system for failing to adhere to certain ethical practices. However, the researcher might
be breaking the ethical norms of his or her discipline, a breach for which sanctions may apply.

The distinction between law and ethics was demonstrated in the case of FIFA Vice President and
Minister of Works and Transport in the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, Jack Warner, who
was accused of corruption within FIFA and suspended from this body pending a full
investigation in June 2010. The Prime Minister of the day, Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, in
responding to calls to also suspend Mr. Warner from his post as Minister until he was cleared of
wrong doing by FIFA, indicated that she was unwilling to do so, since a person is innocent until
proven guilty.

In a commentary on the case, the former head of the Trinidad and Tobago Public Service, Mr.
Reginald Dumas said that while he agreed with the Prime Minister’s decision not to suspend
Warner, because you are innocent until proven guilty he believed the issue involving the code
of ethics that members of Government must uphold, needs to be looked at again. In other
words, the standards by which a person might be held accountable in law could be very different
from the standards by which a person might be held accountable under a code of ethics.

Resnik (2010) defines ethics as norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and
unacceptable behavior. In this unit we will be exploring, not only the definition of ethics in
research, but also the general principles embodied by this concept and a specific example of how
these principles are translated into an actual code of ethics developed by one association. We will
also examine the reasons for focusing on ethics in research; discuss issues of ethical misconduct
and deviations; and provide examples of situations in which ethical dilemmas may arise.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

62
Finally, the framework for ethical practice in the region is very much an emerging one. We will
explore the codes of practice for ethical research in this Caribbean region, and what might be
some of the issues in implementing this code of ethics.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this unit, students will be able to:

1. Define research ethics;

2. Identify the reasons for adhering to ethics in research;
3. Identify some of the organizations with well-defined research ethics around the
world;
4. Identify some of the issues surrounding research ethics in the Caribbean;
5. Explain the main ethical principles by which researchers should be guided;
6. Explain the major ethical issues of concern when undertaking research in general;
7. Explore some of the concrete processes that were implemented to address the need
for greater knowledge of issues surrounding ethical conduct in research in the
Caribbean.

This unit is divided into three sessions as follows:

Session 3.1: Ethics in Research

Session 3.2: The Application of Ethical Codes: Misconduct and Dilemmas
Session 3.3: Ethics in Research in the Caribbean

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

63
Session 3.1

Ethics in Research

Introduction
In the field of research, across disciplines, there are codes of ethics which to guide researchers in
their field of work, so that they can make appropriate decisions about how they conduct
themselves in relation to the research being carried out; the people that are the subjects of the
research; and their colleagues with whom they collaborate. In this session we will be looking at
the definition of ethics in research and the reasons why it is necessary to be guided by them. This
is an area that has been made more complex in recent times by two opposing perspectives that
have been influenced by events and developments in our societies, especially as they relate to
experiments that involve the use of human subjects.

Although ethics in research focuses a lot on research that is carried out using human subjects, it
also speaks to ethical principles underlying any other kind of research that is undertaken by
researchers. This includes principles that speak to the impact of the research on informants and
beneficiaries, as well as, principles surrounding the practices of researchers as they publish and
disseminate the research findings, and as they collaborate with each other.

In this regard we will examine a number of codes of ethics and try to identify the main principles
that they all seek to address; The Nuremberg Code, which was developed specifically to deal with
biomedical experimentation involving human subjects; a broad guideline containing the
principles of ethics in research; and a specific code of ethics developed by the Association of
Institutional Researchers designed to cover ethics in research conducted by its members. There
are a number of codes of ethics for a wide range of disciplines, many of which are found on the
Internet.

What is Ethical Research?

Regardless of the type of the research that is being undertaken, research ethics can be
encompassed by the following definition:

“The application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct to the collection, analysis,
reporting, and publication of information about research subjects, in particular active acceptance
of subjects’ right to privacy, confidentiality, and informed consent” (Marshall, 1998, p. 645).

This is true whether the research involves experiments in which humans are the direct subjects,
or whether they are involved as providers of information for research that ultimately impacts a
wider population.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

64
Research Involving Human Subjects: Historical Foundations to Ethics in
Research
There are two perspectives that have influenced the sensitive balance that has influenced, and is
still influencing, the ethical guidelines being developed around research using human subjects.

The first supports the view that human beings should not be used as “guinea pigs” and was based
on the use of prisoners of war by German scientists for, what was described as “gruesome”
experiments during World War II. This was brought out in the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial.
The withholding of treatment from persons who needed such treatment in order to further the
aims of specific research projects was also a catalyst for the development of ethical guidelines that
sought to protect human subjects from harm. A well publicized example of this behavior was the
Tuskegee Syphilis Study in the 1950s and 1960s, which involved the withholding of known
effective treatment for syphilis from African-American participants who were infected (Trochim,
2006). In order to prevent the repetition of events such as occurred during World War II, the
Nuremberg Code was developed after the War Crimes Trial. The code was based on ten
principles as outlined below:

Box 3.1 The Nuremberg Code

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the
person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; and should be able to exercise
free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit,
duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have
sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society,
unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in
nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation
and knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the
anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental
suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death
or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the
experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian
importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the
experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest
degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those
who conduct or engage in the experiment.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

65
 9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the
experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of
the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate
the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good
faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the
experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Source: 1998 - 2019 American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. The Jewish Virtual Library . The Nuremberg Code
(August 19, 1947). [Link]

Box 3.2 Broad Principles in Code of Ethics in Research

1. Honesty

Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data, results, methods and
procedures, and publication status. Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data. Do not
deceive colleagues, granting agencies, or the public.

2. Objectivity

Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review,
personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where
objectivity is expected or required. Avoid or minimize bias or self- deception. Disclose personal
or financial interests that may affect research.

3. Integrity

Keep your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for consistency of thought and
action.

4. Carefulness

Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the
work of your peers. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research
design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

5. Openness

Share data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Be open to criticism and new ideas.

6. Respect for Intellectual Property

Honor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. Do not use unpublished
data, methods, or results without permission. Give credit where credit is due. Give proper
acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research. Never plagiarize.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

66
7. Confidentiality

Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication,

personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records.

8. Responsible Publication

Publish in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career.
Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.

9. Responsible Mentoring

Help to educate, mentor, and advise students. Promote their welfare and allow them to make
their own decisions.

10. Respect for colleagues

Respect your colleagues and treat them fairly.

11. Social Responsibility

Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public
education, and advocacy.

12. Non-Discrimination

Avoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other
factors that are not related to their scientific competence and integrity.

[Link]
Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong
education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole.
[Link]
Know and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.
[Link] Care
Show proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct
unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.
[Link] Subjects Protection
When conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize
benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with
vulnerable populations; and strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly.
[Link] of Participant Information
Records obtained from all research should be considered confidential. This typically is
guided by the funder, however it is the researcher’s responsibility to protect research
participants in every instance, even moreso if the funder has not specified their guidelines.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

67
 Typically, records are to be kept under lock and key, in secured cabinets, encrypted
and/or password protected – this should be addressed in the research methods. Names,
and all other identifying information should be encoded, and also kept securely, together
with the raw, un-coded information obtained during data collection. There are stipulations
as well for the duration of time that records should be kept, as well as approved methods
for the destruction of such records after the window of storage has expired.
Source: Adapted from Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D., (2009). Responsible conduct of research, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press).

The development of fatal diseases such as AIDS and cancer has, however, caused humans to
demand participation, as subjects, in trials for potential cures. It has also led to a call for the
speeding up of approvals of these cures, notwithstanding ethical considerations driven by the
earlier historical context. In such a context, the principle of doing no harm to human subjects was
foremost.

All of this has led to a review of the earlier ethical considerations so as to find a middle ground.
In that middle ground it is envisaged that efforts to protect human subjects from harm are
balanced with the considerations of finding a potential cure for those who desperately need it in
a timely manner. These ‘updates’, as it were, to the Nuremberg Code, can be found in the Helsinki
Declaration, developed by the World Medical Association since 1964, with the last update
occurring in 2008.

This declaration added the following to the principles of the Nuremberg Code:

Box 3.3 Unique additions in the Helsinki Declaration: A Guide to

Research Ethics
1. The necessity of using an independent investigator to review potential research projects;

2. Employing a medically qualified person to supervise the research and assume responsibility
for the health and welfare of human subjects;

3. The importance of preserving the accuracy of research results;

4. Suggestions on how to obtain informed consent from research participants;

5. Rules concerning research with children and mentally incompetent persons;

6. Evaluating and using experimental treatments on patients;

7. The importance of determining which medical situations and conditions are appropriate and
safe for research.

Source: University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, (2003). Available online

[Link]

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

68
In addition to the Helsinki Declaration, the Belmont Report of 1979 from the National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research also
outlined ethical guidelines for the treatment of human subjects in biomedical and behavioural
research. Together these documents are the foundation for ethical principles in biomedical and
behavioural research using human subjects.

USEFUL RESOURCE LINKS

1. WMA Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving
Human Subjects. [Link]
helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

2. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, (1979). The Belmont Report. Office of
the Secretary. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Available online
[Link]
belmont-report/[Link]

LEARNING ACTIVITY 3.1

Conduct an internet search, using a reputable source, from the UWI library or
published article on the Security of Research Data. Prepare a table that lists at
least 8 to 10 important factors to be considered in this regard. Write a
paragraph of no more than 500 words that explains your understanding of
these factors, and the steps are crucial in the research process. Upload your
post to the designated forum.

Broad Guidelines to Ethics in Research

In addition to ethical guidelines regarding experimentation on human subjects, captured in the
Nuremberg Code, Helsinki Declaration and Belmont Report, ethics in research also refers to
research in general, carried out in institutions and covering a number of disciplines. The
following is a broad guide of the principles that most codes of ethics strive to incorporate
regardless of discipline. It is taken from the article ‘What is Ethics in Research & Why is It
Important?’ (Shamoo & Resnik, 2015).

These principles can be linked to most Codes of Ethics regardless of how they are framed. Take
for example, the Association of Institutional Research (AIR): this is a professional association of
more than 4,000 institutional researchers, planners and decision-makers from more than 1,500
higher education institutions around the world. AIR helps advance research that improves the

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

69
understanding, planning and operation of higher education institutions. The Association for
Institutional Research, (1992), Code of Ethics, outlined by this association is summarized as
follows:

“The Code of Ethics of the Association for Institutional Research was developed to
provide members of the Association with some broad ethical statements with which to
guide their professional lives and to identify relevant considerations when ethical
uncertainties arise. It also provides a means for individuals new to the profession to learn
about the ethical principles and standards that should guide the work of institutional
researchers”( p.1).

See below for the areas covered in the AIR Code of Ethics. The link to this web page provides an
expanded description of each of these areas.

Box 3.4 Unique additions in the Helsinki Declaration: A Guide to

Research Ethics
1. COMPETENCE

a. Claims of Competence.

b. Acceptance of Assignments.

c. Training of Subordinates

d. Professional Continuing Education.

2. PRACTICE

a. Objectivity

b. Use of Accepted Technical Standards.

c. Initial Discussions.

d. Identification of Responsibility.

e. Quality of Secondary Data.

f. Reports.

g. Documentation.

3. CONFIDENTIALITY

a. Atmosphere of Confidentiality.

b. Storage and Security.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

70
 c. Release of Confidential Information.

d. Special Standards for Data Collection.

4. RELATIONSHIPS TO THE COMMUNITY

a. Equal Treatment.

b. Development of Local Codes of Ethics.

c. Custody and Archiving.

d. Assessment of Institutional Research.

e. Institutional Confidentiality.

f. Integrity of Reports.

g. External Reporting.

5. RELATIONSHIPS TO THE CRAFT

a. Research Responsibilities.

b. Integrity of the Profession.

c. False Accusations.

d. Incompetence of Colleagues.

e. Unethical Conduct of Colleagues.

Source: Association for Institutional Research, (1992). Code of Ethics.

LEARNING ACTIVITY 3.2

LINKING THE BROAD GUIDELINES TO SPECIFIC CODE OF
ETHICS

Go to the following link where the expanded code of ethics for the Association
of Institutional Research can be found - [Link]

Answer the following questions, uploading your responses to the designated

forum. Respond to the posts of at least two of your peers.

1. Which are the principles in the AIR Code of Ethics and the Nuremberg
Code that speak to principles of honesty?

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

71
 2. Using the broad guidelines found in Box 3.2 state where you would
place the following component of the AIR Code of Ethics? (You may use
more than one principle/guideline).
“Reports. The institutional researcher shall ensure that all reports of
projects are complete; are clearly written in language understandable to
decision-makers; fully distinguish among assumptions, speculations,
findings, and judgments; employ appropriate statistics and graphics;
adequately describe the limitations of the project, of the analytical
method, and of the findings; and follow scholarly norms in the
attribution of ideas, methods, and expression and in the sources of
data”
3. On which principles in the broad guidelines do you think the
Nuremberg Code focuses?
4. In the broad guidelines in Box 3.3, which two guidelines do you think
are especially relevant to student who are involved in research projects?
Give reasons for your answer in two or three paragraphs.

Session 3.1 Summary

In this session we explored the concept of ethics in research which focused on biomedical
research; however it is just as important to be guided by a code of ethics in general research.

We learnt that the focus on ethics in biomedical research has its roots in gruesome
experimentation conducted in World War II, which led to a comprehensive 10-point code of ethics
known as the Nuremberg Code. Nonetheless, devastating diseases in the contemporary period
have caused people, especially persons afflicted with the diseases, to push for action which,
although potentially in conflict with the codes that were developed for the protection of human
subjects, was felt to be necessary to advance knowledge that could lead to the eradication of the
disease and the prolonging of life. The Helsinki Declaration and the Belmont Report, together
with the Nuremberg Code, are therefore the documents which contain the foundation principles
for ethics in research, especially as they relate to experimentation with human subjects in
biomedical and behavioural research.

In addition to these codes, the broad guidelines of ethics in research in this unit demonstrated the
principles of ethics in research is common to all disciplines. This was reinforced by the provision
of an example of a code ethics from the Association of Institutional Researchers. In this way,
readers have been provided with a basic but comprehensive view of the important principles of
ethics in research from the scientific/biomedical perspective; an institutional research perspective
focusing primarily on research in the discipline of higher education; and a more generic
viewpoint that sought to draw on the principles that would most likely be applicable to research
across all disciplines.

In the next session we will look at the major reasons for adherence to ethical codes of conduct in
research and some of the challenges that could arise, notwithstanding the clear articulation of
these principles.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

72
Session 3.2

The Application of Ethical Codes:

Misconduct and Dilemmas

Introduction
Quite a bit of decision-making in the application of ethics in research may seem very clear and
sensible in terms of its application and based on your general understanding of what constitutes
the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do. There are however, circumstances in
which the existence of a rule might be difficult to implement because it presents some hard
choices, even though, the right and wrong of it is not in question. The Association for Institutional
Research, (1992) explains it thus:

“A code of ethics cannot guarantee ethical behavior or resolve all disputes. Rather it
merely sets forth standards to which professionals aspire and against which their
actions can be judged (both by themselves and others). Ethical behavior should result
from a personal commitment to engage in ethical practice and an attempt to act always
in a manner that assures integrity” (p. 6).

Non-adherence to the code of ethics for research in both of these circumstances is often seen as
ethical misconduct. Some institutions have sought to make a distinction between serious
deviations and other deviations to differentiate between the ones that will definitely not be
accepted and those which might only attract a frown. Others do not make this distinction. In
many organizations and associations, there are penalties for different deviations which may vary
depending on the institution to which you belong.

There are, however, some situations which might create doubt because, in that particular
situation, adhering to the rule may impact negatively on some human rights, while not adhering
to it may also impact negatively on another set of human rights. These are known as ethical
dilemmas, and in this session we will look at a case study and discuss what kinds of solutions
can be prescribed.

In this session we will be looking at the reasons for ethics in research; aspects of ethical decision-
making in research; and some of the challenges to decision-making that may require
interpretation by researchers, even as they attempt to act in a manner that assures integrity.

Reasons for Ethics in Research

There are many reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. The four main
reasons are as follows:

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

73
 1. To promote the aims of research;
2. To promote the values that are essential to collaboration between and among
researchers;
3. To ensure transparency and promote public trust;
4. To ensure the welfare and proper treatment of human beings within the context of
social and moral values of the wider society

Let us explore these further.

To promote the aims of research

Adherence to a code of ethics that addresses issues of competence, honesty and integrity is
important for ensuring that the research undertaken achieves its basic objectives of promoting
the creation of knowledge, and as far as is humanly possible the avoidance of errors. Ethical
researchers will, therefore, not engage in the fabrication or falsification of data, nor will they
misrepresent their own competence to engage in the research.

To promote the values that are essential to collaboration

Trust, transparency, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness are important attributes for
ethical behavior when collaborating with others in any research project. It is, however, one of the
areas, as we will see later on, in which there is greatest scope for ethical dilemmas. It is
nonetheless important to strive for these ideals.

To ensure transparency and promote public trust

Public trust is important for a number of reasons. It promotes confidence in the results of research
that is undertaken, which might be important for public health reasons and for general uptake of
the outcomes of the research. It is also important as a demonstration of proper use of public funds,
and a way of encouraging sponsorship and support for further research. Ethical behavior that
involves transparency and accountability is therefore likely to promote public trust.

To ensure the welfare and proper treatment of human beings

As discussed previously, ethical behavior that accepts the rights of subjects to privacy,
confidentiality, anonymity and informed consent is an important aspect of human rights and
promotes the welfare and proper treatment of persons involved as subjects of research. This is
especially important in biomedical research.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

74
 LEARNING ACTIVITY 3.3
Identify some of the ethical issues you think would be involved in the
following research activities in your country. (E.g. is there an explicit code
of ethics for the conduct of this research? If so, what is that code? If not,
what do you believe the code might be?).
• Conduct of the Population Census
• Conduct of research designed to understand the sexual practices of
the Population aged 15 years and over.
Do you think that there is public trust and confidence in the results of the
research? Do you think that there is public trust in the use of the results of
the research?
Upload your response to the designated discussion forum. Respond to the
posts of at least two of your peers.

Ethical Decision-Making in Research

Ethical codes and principles often require interpretation. Serious deviations, considered as
misconduct are fairly clear-cut. This includes the following:

1. Falsification: Misrepresentation of results.

2. Fabrication: Reporting on experiments never performed.
3. Plagiarism: Taking the writings or ideas of another and representing them as one’s
own.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and many major research funders view falsification,
fabrication and plagiarism as examples of serious deviations. This allows them to identify other
deviations, some of which they also view as serious. Other institutions such as the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) view
falsification, fabrication and plagiarism as the definition of serious misconduct. This means that
other deviations may not be seen as being as serious as these three. Such is the nature of
discussions on ethics – a living, changing concept, developed and framed by a community of
persons trying their best to do right and act with integrity.

In the sections that follow, you will read about misconduct in a variety of forms. It is important
that you are very familiar and knowledgeable of these cases, specifically because misconduct of
any sort becomes grounds for funding to be pulled, and research ceased. When cases of
misconduct arise, the primary researcher’s reputation is tarnished, and this can have severe
repercussions; even more serious are the effects of misconduct on research participants,
particularly if anyone was harmed in the conduct of the research. Research misconduct seriously
undermines the integrity of your research, your university or organization, and the field in
general.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

75
At this juncture, we will provide some more in-depth definitions of the three forms of misconduct
mentioned above; and drill down in more detail into the concept of plagiarism.

Falsification
“Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or
omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research
record” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019). This type of scenario can occur
following the conduct of an experiment, when the researcher changes measurements, images or
results, to be different from what was utilized, or derived. Falsification can take place in both
qualitative and quantitative research; so it is incumbent upon the researcher to maintain research
integrity at all times.

Fabrication
Fabrication takes place when the researcher or research team constructs or adds data,
observations or other value to the actual data that was gathered, or gleaned from experiments.
This can take place when forms, documents, data sets or claims are being made based on less than
complete information, or even deliberately inaccurate results being reported (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2019). Fabrication includes the creation or generation of data, as well
as reporting of “findings” on experiments that never actually took place or research participants
that never existed.

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is easily the most common aspect of research misconduct. Anyone who uses or
prepares data, reports and other forms of information related to research, must very thoroughly
cite all sources, and maintain accurate notes. When writing, in any form, whether as a student or
as a researcher in any regard, it is imperative to always ascribe credit for any work that is not
your original work. Proprietary work, refers to information that belongs to anyone, whether a
journal, book, researcher, website, or any other published or unpublished course. When such
work is used for the purposes of anyone other than the original owner, it must be clearly notated
i.e., cited and referenced so that the source is acknowledged, and can be located in its original
form, using the reference and/or website/url that is provided. This even applies to conversations
and verbal interviews, regardless of the medium in which such activities take place. In such an
instance, utilize the appropriate format to cite and reference the conversation or interview that
took place. Dr. E. Bik, further explains in the Science Integrity Digest, (2019), “Although this might
sound clear at first glance, there is a huge grey zone. It is fairly easy to scan for textual
similarities…but it is much harder to prove that ideas have been reused (p.4).” This further
emphasizes that that one must always be very thorough in citing and referencing in order to
maintain one’s integrity, and the integrity of one’s organization, company, program, and
work/intellectual property – this all becomes compromised, when one plagiarizes.

Therefore, as new researchers, students, or anyone that participates in research, or any aspect
thereof, it is imperative that one always, in every instance, provides correct citations for all work
that is reused, reframed, paraphrased, or replicated in any form, that is other than one’s very
own, original writing. Frequently, students turn in work that has been copied directly from the

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

76
internet or other sources, including extensive sections of text, without providing information on
the source; in any instance that this occurs, you are plagiarizing, and infringing on the intellectual
property of the original author. To reiterate, this is a very serious issue, and therefore as potential
researchers, and as active students, we need to take note of this. It is recommended that you
perform an internet search, and look at some cases and instances of plagiarism, so that you are
completely aware of these instances. Next, if you are not fully aware of UWI Open Campus rules
on plagiarism, visit [Link] to read the policy.

USEFUL RESOURCE LINK

Further discussions on the definition of research misconduct are available at:
Comments on Definitions of Research Misconduct
[Link]

Misconduct related to research, in any form, is extremely harmful, and

detrimental, therefore it cannot be emphasized enough in this unit on ethics. While
it is clear that persons may attempt to fly under the radar, or feign ignorance in the
misrepresentation of data, it is, simply put, unethical, and will have dire
consequences, which can be as costly as the life of a human being.

Research Misconduct
Research misconduct may be the result of deliberate and intentional breaking of laws. In cases
such as these, the researcher accused of misconduct will be punishable by law. There are quite a
few examples of such misconduct in the history of scientific research.

Medical researcher, Eric Poehlman, is one such example. He was accused of fraudulent data in
lectures and in published papers, and he was also accused of using this data to obtain nearly three
million dollars in federal grants from the National Institutes of Health. He was sentenced to serve
a year and a day in federal prison (U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Office of
Research Integrity, 2019).

Psychiatrist Richard Borison, received 15 years in prison to be followed by another 15 year

probation, while his partner in crime, pharmacologist Bruce Diamond, received a 5 year prison
term for unethically recruiting patients for clinical trials to test new drugs on behalf of drug
companies. In addition they diverted funds meant for the Medical College of Georgia, where they
both were on staff, by pretending that they were going to conduct the trials at the College, but
instead, kept payments meant for the college for themselves (Alliance for Human Research
Protection, 2019).

There are other types of misconduct which while not seen as breaking the law and therefore
deserving of a prison sentence, still constitute serious misconduct and have led to the loss of jobs
for those persons accused and convicted of ethical misconduct in research. Two example of this
are the case of John Darsee and the case of Hwang-Woo-Suk.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

77
 1. The case of John Darsee of Harvard University. Darsee was accused of fabricating
data for research in the area of cardiology. He had actually drawn data from one
experiment and passed it off as data drawn from multiple experiments. Moreover,
the experiment from which the data was drawn was conducted on a dog. Darsee
admitted to his guilt when confronted. He had to retract a total of 8 papers and 32
abstracts written at Emory University, and 9 papers and 21 abstracts written at
Harvard University. It was also found that he had created erroneous data as an
undergraduate student at the University of Notre Dame. He was stripped of his NIH
fellowship, his Harvard faculty appointment, and was barred from any NIH funding
(Lin, 2016).
2. Hwang Woo-Suk. He was a South Korean scientist and professor of biotechnology
and theriogenology at Seoul National University. His research was conducted on
stem cell research in which many claims were made about its potential for curing a
wide range of illnesses. However, it was discovered that his published articles were
based on falsified data. He confessed to numerous frauds and violations against
ethics and research. This led to his release from his position at Seoul National
University (Lin, 2016).

Here is a list of other types of deviations which might be considered unethical, and in some cases
‘serious deviations’ in some organizations, institutions or associations. These include the
following:

1. Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors.
2. Submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors.
3. Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that
you are the sole inventor.
4. Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the
colleague did not make a serious contribution to the paper.
5. Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are
reviewing for a journal
6. Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper.
7. Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of
your research.
8. Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press
conference without giving peers adequate information to review your work.
9. Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of
other people in the field or relevant prior work.
10. Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your
project will make a significant contribution to the field.
11. Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vita.
12. Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do
it the fastest.
13. Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral students.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

78
 14. Failing to keep good research records.
15. Failing to maintain research data for a reasonable period of time.
16. Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author’s
submission.
17. Promising a student a better grade for sexual favors.
18. Using a racist epithet in the laboratory.
19. Making significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your
institution without telling the committee or the board.
20. Not reporting an adverse event in a human research experiment.
21. Wasting animals in research.
22. Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution’s
biosafety rules.
23. Rejecting a manuscript for publication without even reading it.
24. Sabotaging someone’s work.
25. Stealing supplies, books, or data.
26. Rigging an experiment so you know how it will turn out.
27. Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs.
28. Deliberately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to obtain
economic benefits.
Source: Resnik, D., (2010). What is ethics and why is it important. Available online
[Link]

Reading

University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, 2003. A guide to research ethics.

[Link]

LEARNING ACTIVITY 3.4

Identify from the list of deviations provided previously, the deviations
that you think are most likely to be relevant to research students.

Ethical Dilemmas
There are times when ethical decisions are difficult to make because there are strong ethical
principles which can be applied to both sides of an issue. These are times when there are no clear
right and wrong answers, but instead, situations which have to be considered on their own merit.
Solutions to the problems raised in ethical dilemmas, also tend to depend on the circumstances
of the case.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

79
Below is a case study that gives an example of a dilemma (Resnik, 2010).

Dr. Wexford is the principal investigator of a large, epidemiological study on the health of 5,000
agricultural workers. She has an impressive dataset that includes information on demographics,
environmental exposures, diet, genetics, and various disease outcomes such as cancer,
Parkinson’s Disease (PD), and ALS. She has just published a paper on the relationship between
pesticide exposure and PD in a prestigious journal. She is planning to publish many other papers
from her dataset. She receives a request from another research team that wants access to her
complete dataset. They are interested in examining the relationship between pesticide exposures
and skin cancer. Dr. Wexford was planning to conduct a study on this topic.

Dr. Wexford faces a difficult choice. On 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.

The Atlanta Clinical & Translational Science Institute’s (ACTSI) webpage on ethical dilemmas in
scientific research and professional integrity presents a number of cases of ethical dilemmas and
expert opinions on how to address these problems. See the links below for selected examples from
the Georgia Clinical & Translational Science Alliance.

• A breach of confidentiality. [Link]

• Read this, but don’t tell anybody. [Link]
• An instance of data manipulation. [Link]
• Deleting data points. [Link]

In any scenario where doubt arises, seek advice from your principal investigator or lead
researcher.

Covert observations also create ethical dilemmas. This is one of the types of research used by
ethnographers to uncover data around sensitive information or to uncover information that is
authentic and detailed because the subjects are not aware that they are being studied.
Notwithstanding the potential usefulness of such data, there is much discomfort regarding the
ethics of this type of research. The two issues that are of primary concern are the invasion of the
privacy of subjects without their knowledge i.e. no informed consent, and disappearing at the
end of the research from the lives of people who might have come to like, trust and depend on
you. Issues of dishonesty and exploitation emerge in this context, even as the research method is
seen to be a legitimate one in some disciplines.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

80
Session 3.2 Summary

This session explored the reasons for ethics in research focusing on four main reasons for
adherence to a code of ethics in research. In this regard, in addition to its role in promoting the
aims of the research, we see that ethical conduct is important in promoting transparency and
values that are important to collaborative research work. It is also important in ensuring the trust
that would ensure public confidence in the results of the research and funding for research by
sponsors, and last, but by no means least, it is important for the proper treatment of human
subjects in research. This includes ensuring privacy and confidentiality, as well as participation
based on informed consent.

In this session we also looked at ethical decision making in research, identifying and defining
ethical misconduct as a serious breach of the code of ethics in research, with a general agreement
that falsification, fabrication and plagiarism are the chief forms of misconduct. We also looked at
other deviations from what is generally considered to be ethical principles in research, providing
examples from the literature on cases of misconduct which resulted in prison sentences and those
which resulted in other punitive action by the research community to which the researcher
belonged.

The session ended with a brief examination of the concept of ethical dilemmas, and examples of
these, as well as, links to further examples and expert opinions on ways to deal with the issues
contained in the examples.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

81
Session 3.3

Ethics In Research In The Caribbean

Introduction
Ethics in research in the Caribbean is slowly growing in importance. It is fair to say, however,
that at present, there is no comprehensive framework for the articulation of ethics in research
across many disciplines in this region.

Based on the increasing thrust of research in the region, the number of ethical review committees
can be said to be very inadequate. Having said this however, there has been greater activity in
the region with regards to the establishment of bioethics, which is research related to the use of
human subjects in medical research.

In this session we will examine the various bodies that currently exist to deal with issues of ethics
in research within the region; at the national, sub-regional and regional levels. We will also briefly
review research which identifies some of the gaps that exist and examine the attempts that have
been made to address these gaps.

Bodies for Ethics in Research in the Caribbean

Internationally there is a culture of ethical review and development of codes for ethical conduct
in research across a number of disciplines, especially in North America and Europe. In the
Caribbean, this culture is not as well established, nonetheless there are some initiatives that are
worthy of mention. The three main initiatives/bodies of note in this regard are:

1. The Caribbean Research Ethics Education Initiative (CREEI);

2. The Bioethics Society of the English Speaking Caribbean (BSEC);
3. UWI Centre for Ethics

The Caribbean Research Ethics Education Initiative (CREEI)

Program Director/Principal Investigator: Philpott-Jones, Sean PROJECT SUMMARY: Clarkson
University, in partnership with St. George's University (SGU) in Grenada and the Universidad
Autónoma de Querétaro (UAQ) in Mexico, currently offers a National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Fogarty International Center (FIC)-supported graduate level online/onsite certificate program to
build research ethics capacity in the independent low- and middle-income countries that border
the Caribbean Sea. That program, the Caribbean Research Ethics Education Initiative (CREEi) is
now in its fifth year. By the end of the current funding cycle this program will have graduated 72
trainees from 17 countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

82
Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panamá, St.
Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. An addition 8
trainees would have complete the program by June 2019. To read more about this visit
[Link]

The Bioethics Society of the English Speaking Caribbean (BSEC)

The Bioethics Society for the English speaking Caribbean was established in May 2006. The
mission of this society is:

To increase knowledge and understanding of bioethics through promoting and fostering

deliberations across the English-speaking Caribbean, as well as through international
collaboration, thereby making a significant contribution to the overall development and
implementation of bioethics in human and animal healthcare, research and policy-making
([Link]

The role of the Committee of the BSEC includes the recruitment of experts to facilitate dialogue
among members about bioethical issues. It also encourages and advocates for the use of bioethics
in policy making within the Caribbean. There are five regional representatives through which
communication within the region is facilitated. The representatives cover the following areas:

• North (Bermuda, Bahamas, Turks & Caicos and British & U.S. Virgin Islands)
• West (Belize, Cayman Islands & Jamaica)
• Northeast (St. Kitts & Nevis, Montserrat, Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda)
• Southeast (Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & Barbados)
• South (Grenada, Trinidad & Tobago and Guyana)

In 2004, Dr. Derrick Aarons, Physician and Bioethicist made a presentation on “The last 10 years
of Bioethics in the English-Speaking Caribbean. In this presentation, Dr. Aarons described the
gaps in knowledge about bioethical issues in the Caribbean and the absence of an adequate
number of persons trained in research ethics in the region.

To view the presentation, please visit:

[Link]
mentos%2Fthe-last-10-years-of-bioethics-in-the-english-speaking-caribbean-an-overview-
derrick-aarons-ppt_76204_5_5937.pptx

These concerns were addressed through a series of workshops, noteworthy among them being
the workshop on Ethics in Health Care and Research in the Caribbean, held in February 2000 in
Trinidad and Tobago, and the workshop on Ethics in Human Subjects Research in the Caribbean
held in February 2001, also in Trinidad and Tobago. In order to address the gaps in knowledge
of ethical issues in research identified among investigators in the Caribbean, workshop
participants were exposed to a number of topics over those two years, as well as in other meetings
held previous and subsequent to the workshops. Examples of these topics include the following:

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

83
 • Ethical issues in health care and public health in the Caribbean
• Models of clinical ethics committees
• Research ethics committees
• Caribbean Ethics Network
• Training in health care ethics
• Fundamentals of human subjects research ethics
• Status of ethical review in the Caribbean
• Establishment of ethical review committee
• Application of basic ethical principles
• Research in developing countries: Standards of care
• Standard operating procedures
• Establishing a forum for ethics discussion in Caribbean countries: Caribbean Ethics
Network

The presentation also pointed to the limited existence of Research Ethics Committees across the
English-speaking Caribbean. This is supported in an article by Dr. Anthony Mullings (2007) who
says in his article:

The research ethics committee (REC) is critical to the preservation of research integrity
and public trust in research without which the research enterprise will fail. In a recent
published review of data on national regulations and RECs worldwide, the Caribbean
region was identified as one of the areas with only a few published guidelines (1) despite
previous effort at encouraging the establishment of RECs (2). (p105).

In addition to the observation on the inadequacy of ethical review committees, the workshop in
2001 also came to the conclusion that there were too few persons who had received training in
research ethics, and that there was an urgent need to provide such training in the Caribbean.

The Bioethics Committee has maintained its relevance and continues to hold annual forums, the
first of which was held in 2007. The importance of a body to which investigators can have access
and the opportunity to debate and reach consensus on ethical issues cannot be overestimated,
especially in light of the increasing numbers of clinical trials being held in the region.

UWI Centre for Ethics and Ethics in Research at the University of

the West Indies
The University of the West Indies has two main bodies or departments that have developed
policies on ethics in research. These are the Office of Research and the Faculty of Medical Sciences.

The Office of Research is the research arm of the School of Graduate Studies and Research and is
based at the St. Augustine Campus. The Office provides active support for University-wide
research. The website of the Office contains excerpts from the Policy on Ethics which was
developed for the University in 1998.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

84
The University Policy on Ethics was, however, reviewed in October 2010 and a revised policy will
soon replace the older version. See [Link]
for a draft of the updated document. This document includes all aspects of ethics in research
including research using both human subjects and animals.

The UWI Cave Hill has a separate policy on ethics in research involving human subjects, for
which the Institutional Research Board (IRB) is the primary mechanism of ethics review for the
Cave Hill Campus, as well as the Barbados Ministry of Health. The IRB is officially registered
with the U.S. Office of Human Research Protections and is, therefore, guided by the relevant
regulations regarding human subjects research and the composition of IRBs, which are contained
in the code of Federal Regulations.

The Faculty of Medical Sciences at the Mona Campus also has an ethics committee, which is
responsible for ethical conduct in research at the faculty as well as at the University Hospital of
the West Indies (UHWI). The responsibility of the Ethics Committee is outlined as follows:

• Review prospectively all research protocols involving human subjects proposed

within the University Hospital and the Faculty of Medical Sciences, or by staff
members of the FMS and UHWI, to ensure that they meet the required ethical and
scientific standards.
• Monitor at least quarterly, those approved research projects that carry possible and
significant risk of harm to research subjects, with the committee being empowered to
disallow unacceptable research to go forward.
• Ensure the humane treatment of animals being used experimentally for research and
teaching in accordance with the laws of Jamaica.
• Examine and make recommendations on ethical problems related to the conduct of
members of the medical staff of the University Hospital and the academic,
administrative and other staff members of the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Mona.
• Assist hospital and medical staff in developing policies and guidelines regarding
ethical issues, questions, or problems arising in the care of patients.
• Provide analysis, where requested, of the ethical aspects of existing or proposed
policy for the Faculty of Medical Sciences or the University Hospital of the West
Indies.
• Assist in the development of new institutional policies in areas of need.
• Invite staff or patients at the University Hospital to bring forward for discussion
matters deemed of ethical importance.
• 3Provide a forum for analysis of ethical questions that arise in the care of individual
patients.
• Review cases where decisions involve significant ethical ambiguity and perplexity.
• Review cases where decisions involve disagreement between health care personnel,
or between such personnel and patients/families regarding the ethical aspects of a
patient’s care.

Source: The University of the West Indies, (2019). Faculty of Medical Sciences. UWI Ethics Committee. Available
online [Link]

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

85
The University of the West Indies is also actively planning to develop a Centre for Ethics, which
is expected to be located on the St. Augustine Campus. It is intended that this Centre would
“become a Centre of Excellence in the field of ethics, contribute to the development of the
distinctive UWI graduate and enhance the reputation of the UWI.” The aim of the Centre is to
foster teaching and research in ethics, as well as to promote dialogue around ethical issues,
thereby providing leadership and resources on matters related to ethics in general and ethics in
research.

Gender Issues
According to the World Health Organization (2020) there are ethical concerns related to gender.
The WHO explains that gender refers to the “socially constructed characteristics of men and
women, whereas sex refers to the biological differences between males and females”
([Link]

Visit [Link] to read

more about this as it is important for researchers to understand these areas.

Session 3.3 Summary

In this session, we discussed the situation of ethics in research in the Caribbean. It was recognized
that the framework for the development of a code of ethics in research across disciplines in the
Caribbean was weak. Research identified insufficient review committees and too few persons
with knowledge about ethics in research as two of the main challenges in the development of a
strong framework for ethics in research in the Caribbean.

We also examined the various efforts that were made to develop a framework for ethics in
research. We explored organizations like Caribbean Research Ethics Education Initiative, which
safeguard and provide guidelines for research throughout the Caribbean.

The University of the West Indies was also identified as an institution with considerable interest
in the area of ethics in research, and which has developed a code of ethics and which also has
plans to expand this interest more substantially.

Unit 3 Summary

The discussion of ethics in this Unit has made clear the point that the conduct of research in this
contemporary period has been affected by events in the past, events which should not recur in an
ideal environment. We also learned that in spite of codes to protect unethical experimentation
based on events of the past, codes of ethics are influenced by changes in events and other
considerations of human rights. These changes have led, in the first instance, to an expansion of
the foundations of ethical behavior, found in the Helsinki Declaration and the Belmont Report.
We have also learnt that changes in contexts also result in modifications and updating of Codes
of Ethics.

Session 3.1 focused on ethics in biomedical research which led to a comprehensive 10-point code

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

86
of ethics known as the Nuremberg Code. Unethical practices lead to the push for action which,
although potentially in conflict with the codes that were developed for the protection of human
subjects, were necessary for advancement. The Helsinki Declaration and the Belmont Report
together with the Nuremberg Code are therefore the documents which contain the foundation
principles for ethics in research, especially related to human subjects and ethical practices that are
common to all disciplines.

In Session 3.2 we also looked at ethical decisions in research, the identification and definition
ethical misconduct as a serious breach of the code of ethics in research, with a general agreement
that falsification, fabrication and plagiarism are the chief forms of misconduct. We also looked at
other deviations from what is generally considered to be ethical principles in research, providing
examples from the literature on cases of misconduct which resulted in prison sentences and those
which resulted in other punitive action by the research community to which the researcher
belonged.

Finally, we looked at the framework for ethical behavior in research in the Caribbean. While there
has been much effort to improve and expand the framework that would facilitate and strengthen
ethics in research, it is clear that based on the increase in research that is taking place in the
Caribbean, there is a much greater need to focus on the development of codes of ethics in research
across disciplines and the creation of many more review committees. At present, much of the
work that is taking place seems to be happening in the area of bioethical research.

In this unit, we saw that while it is fairly easy to identify some aspects of ethical behavior that
ought not to be accepted and condoned, there are other types of ethical principles that are not as
easy to interpret and to act upon. This has made it necessary to use case studies to assist in the
definition and description of ethical misconduct and ethical dilemmas.

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

87
References
1998 - 2019 American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, (2019). The Jewish Virtual Library.
The Nuremberg Code (August 19, 1947). Retrieved from
[Link]

Alliance for Human Research Protection, (2019). Scientific Fraud: Eric Poehlman /
Richard Borison Retrieved from [Link]

Association for Institutional Research, (1992). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from

[Link]

Bik, E. (2019). What is research misconduct? Part 1: Plagiarism, ¶4. Science Integrity
Digest. Retrieved from [Link]
research-misconduct-part-1-plagiarism/comment-page-1/

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, (1979). The Belmont Report. Office of the
Secretary. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Retrieved from
[Link]
belmont-report/[Link]

Georgia Clinical & Translational Science Alliance, (2019). Robert W. Woodruff Health
Sciences Center | Emory University. A breach of confidentiality. Retrieved from
[Link]

Georgia Clinical & Translational Science Alliance, (2019). Robert W. Woodruff Health
Sciences Center | Emory University. An instance of data manipulation. Retrieved
from [Link]

Georgia Clinical & Translational Science Alliance, (2019). Robert W. Woodruff Health
Sciences Center | Emory University. Deleting data points. Retrieved from
[Link]

Georgia Clinical & Translational Science Alliance, (2019). Robert W. Woodruff Health
Sciences Center | Emory University. Read this, but don’t tell anybody. Retrieved
from [Link]

Lin, D., (2016). Baruch College. Research Misconduct Cases - Research Integrity Officer
(RIO). Retrieved from
[Link]

Marshall, G., (1998). Research ethics. A Dictionary of Sociology. [Link].

Retrieved from [Link]

Mullings, A. M., (2007). Research Ethics Committees: Preserving Research Integrity and
the Public Trust. West Indian Med Journal, 56 (2), p. 105. Retrieved from
[Link]

Resnik, B., (2010). What is Ethics in Research & why is it important? Available online
[Link]

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

88
Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D., (2015). Responsible conduct of research, 3rd ed. New York:
Oxford University Press.

The University of the West Indies (2019). Research Ethics. Available online
[Link]

The University of the West Indies, (2019). Faculty of Medical Sciences. UWI Ethics
Committee. Available online [Link]

Trochim, W.M.K., (2006). Research methods knowledge base. Ethics in research.

Available online [Link]

University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, (2003). A guide to research ethics.

Available online [Link]

U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, (2019). Case Summary: Poehlman, Eric
T. Office of Research Integrity. Available online [Link]

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (2019). Definition of research

misconduct. The Office of Research Integrity. Available online
[Link]

World Health Organization, (2020). Sexual and reproductive health. Available online
[Link]

WMA Declaration of Helsinki, (1964). Ethical principles for medical research involving
human subjects. [Link]
ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

SOCI1006: Developing Practical Research Skills UNIT3_2020_02_14_v1

89