Ethical Decision Making in Research

Although codes, policies, and principals are very important and useful, like any set of rules, they
do not cover every situation, they often conflict, and they require considerable interpretation. It is
therefore important for researchers to learn how to interpret, assess, and apply various research
rules and how to make decisions and to act ethically in various situations. The vast majority of
decisions involve the straightforward application of ethical rules. For example, consider the
following case,

Case 1:

The research protocol for a study of a drug on hypertension requires the administration of the
drug at different doses to 50 laboratory mice, with chemical and behavioral tests to determine
toxic effects. Tom has almost finished the experiment for Dr. Q. He has only 5 mice left to test.
However, he really wants to finish his work in time to go to Florida on spring break with his
friends, who are leaving tonight. He 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:

Case 2:

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

Dr. 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:
 Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors
Submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors
Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you
are the sole inventor
Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the
colleague did not make a serious contribution to the paper
Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are reviewing for
a journal
Using data, ideas, or methods you learn about while reviewing a grant or a papers without
permission
Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper
Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your
research
Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press
conference without giving peers adequate information to review your work
Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other
people in the field or relevant prior work
Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your project
will make a significant contribution to the field
Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vita
Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do it
the fastest
Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral students
Failing to keep good research records
Failing to maintain research data for a reasonable period of time
Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's submission
Promising a student a better grade for sexual favors
Using a racist epithet in the laboratory
Making significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your institution's
Animal Care and Use Committee or Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects
Research without telling the committee or the board
Not reporting an adverse event in a human research experiment
Wasting animals in research
Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's biosafety
rules
Sabotaging someone's work
Stealing supplies, books, or data
Rigging an experiment so you know how it will turn out
Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs
Owning over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your research and not
disclosing this financial interest
Deliberately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to obtain
economic benefits

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. Consider the following case:

Case 3:

Dr. Wexford is the principal investigator of a large, epidemiological study on the health of
10,000 agricultural workers. She has an impressive dataset that includes information on
demographics, environmental exposures, diet, genetics, and various disease outcomes such as
cancer, Parkinsons 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. Another option would be to offer to
collaborate with the researchers.

The following are some step that researchers, such as Dr. Wexford, can take to deal with ethical
dilemmas in research:

What is the problem or issue?

It is always important to get a clear statement of the problem. In this case, the issue is whether to
share information with the other research team.

What is the relevant information?

Many bad decisions are made as a result of poor information. To know what to do, Dr. Wexford
needs to have more information concerning such matters as university or funding agency or
journal policies that may apply to this situation, the team's intellectual property interests, the
possibility of negotiating some kind of agreement with the other team, whether the other team
also has some information it is willing to share, the impact of the potential publications, etc.

What are the different options?

People may fail to see different options due to a limited imagination, bias, ignorance, or fear. In
this case, there may be other choices besides 'share' or 'don't share,' such as 'negotiate an
agreement' or 'offer to collaborate with the researchers.'

How do ethical codes or policies as well as legal rules apply to these different options?

The university or funding agency may have policies on data management that apply to this case.
Broader ethical rules, such as openness and respect for credit and intellectual property, may also
apply to this case. Laws relating to intellectual property may be relevant.

Are there any people who can offer ethical advice?

It may be useful to seek advice from a colleague, a senior researcher, your department chair, an
ethics or compliance officer, or anyone else you can trust. In the case, Dr. Wexford might want
to talk to her supervisor and research team before making a decision.

After considering these questions, a person facing an ethical dilemma may decide to ask more
questions, gather more information, explore different options, or consider other ethical rules.
However, at some point he or she will have to make a decision and then take action. Ideally, a
person who makes a decision in an ethical dilemma should be able to justify his or her decision
to himself or herself, as well as colleagues, administrators, and other people who might be
affected by the decision. He or she should be able to articulate reasons for his or her conduct and
should consider the following questions in order to explain how he or she arrived at his or her
decision: .

Which choice will probably have the best overall consequences for science and society?
Which choice could stand up to further publicity and scrutiny?
Which choice could you not live with?
Think of the wisest person you know. What would he or she do in this situation?
Which choice would be the most just, fair, or responsible?

After considering all of these questions, one still might find it difficult to decide what to do. If
this is the case, then it may be appropriate to consider others ways of making the decision, such
as going with a gut feeling or intuition, seeking guidance through prayer or meditation, or even
flipping a coin. Endorsing these methods in this context need not imply that ethical decisions are
irrational, however. The main point is that human reasoning plays a pivotal role in ethical
decision-making but there are limits to its ability to solve all ethical dilemmas in a finite amount
of time.
Code of Ethics in Research
Code of Ethics in Research
Loyola Schools
Ateneo de Manila University
(approved by the School Council on 31 August 2007)

Introduction

This Code of Ethics in Research sets forth general principles of ethical conduct to guide scholars
toward
the highest ideals of scholarly research. The principles represent aspirational goals and delineate
enforceable standards that should direct researchers to an ethical course of action. Moreover,
they are
consonant with the values and mission of the Ateneo de Manila University as a Filipino,
Catholic, and
Jesuit institution.

The Code of Ethics in Research applies to all members of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools
community. Thus, the principles are stated broadly in order to apply to scholars in various
disciplines
using various methods of inquiry, and their specific application may vary depending on the
context of the
researcher.

Preamble

We, the faculty and research staff of the Loyola Schools, Ateneo de Manila University, hold that
our
profession as scholars entails an unqualified commitment to the pursuit of truth, an abiding
dedication to
the promotion of the public good, and a sustained interest in mentoring students and fellow
researchers.
Alongside our efforts to maintain the ideals of scholarly integrity and academic freedom, we
accept our
duty to uphold the vision-mission of this institution as a Filipino, Catholic, and Jesuit University,
and to
promote the interests of the greater community which this University seeks to serve and
develop.
Cognizant of our responsibility to our public, we hereby bind ourselves to the strictest measure
of
integrity and the highest ethical standards to be worthy of the public's trust.
I. The Principle of Integrity and Honesty

As a University, we seek to preserve, extend, and communicate truth. The importance of honesty
and
credibility cannot therefore be overemphasized in the conduct of research. Our practice as
researchers
should advance the knowledge, mission, and values of our profession, and maintain and enhance
its
validity through rigorous study, active dissemination and discussion, and responsible criticism.
Thus, all
faculty, research staff, and students should fulfill the responsibilities and obligations stated
below:

A. Competence in the conduct of research

1. Conduct all research activities in accordance with the accepted standards of our discipline
2. Refrain from accepting or undertaking research assignments requiring competencies that we
do
not have, unless collaborating with or being supervised by a more knowledgeable scholar
3. Avoid claiming or implying a degree of research competency that we do not possess in
proposals,
job applications, resumes, or in the ordinary conduct of affairs

B. Accuracy of research data and reports

1. Ensure the accuracy of all data that we and our collaborators have gathered and/or used in our
research
2. Ensure that only the correct data, information, and research results shall be reported in
journals,
conferences, and reports to clients in case of commissioned research
3. Take reasonable steps to rectify significant errors that we or others have found in our
published
data, via the issuance of erratum, retraction, or correction of the data
4. Avoid misleading statements or declarations and vague assertions that could be subject to
misinterpretation. If such misinterpretation is brought to our attention, it is our obligation to
immediately issue a clarification or rectification.
5. Avoid making exaggerated claims that are not warranted by the results of our research inquiry

C. Acknowledgment of sources of data/information or other contribution to the research

1. Not to plagiarize; that is, to present portions of anothers report or data as our own, even if the
other work or data source is cited occasionally
2. Cite clearly all sources of information and data that we use which are not the results of our
own
research
3. Give proper acknowledgment and credit to resource/funding sources of our research
4. Grant and limit authorship to those who made a significant contribution to the research
endeavor
D. Openness and responsibility in the conduct and presentation of research
1. Keep detailed and complete records of our research undertaking
2. Be transparent in the use and disbursement of resources for our research
3. Declare promptly any conflict of interest in our engagement in research and presentation of
research results 2
4. Ensure that our research results are accessible to the public once the research is concluded or
as
soon as is reasonable
5. Respect the confidentiality of sources by not using or releasing data and information revealed
to
us in confidence

E. Safeguarding the integrity of the profession

Report violations of any of the principles and rules found here (or in supplementary guidelines)
to the
office or committee that has been duly mandated to evaluate and act on possible violations of
this
ethical code*

II. The Principle of Justice and Fairness

As a University that promotes justice and the formation of scholars, professionals, students, and
the
community, we recognize that research is a collaborative effort in which we contribute to the
knowledge
in our discipline by sharing our resources and expertise, and utilizing and building on others. It
is
therefore vital that we treat our peers, colleagues, students, benefactors, and research participants
justly
and fairly. To this end, it is the duty of each of us to fulfill the following responsibilities and
standards of
conduct:

A. Extension of due regard and collegiality towards fellow researchers

1. Render unto our peers, colleagues, students, and research participants the respect that they
deserve
2. Provide assistance to other researchers, especially if we are uniquely qualified to do so by our
expertise
3. Respect the confidentiality and proprietary rights of our peers, colleagues, and students whose
material we review for publication, presentation, or funding by a grant
4. Take diligent care of equipment, material resources, and results

B. Credit of others contribution, resources, and materials utilized in research

1. Grant authorship in accordance with the significance of collaborators contribution in the
research*
2. Appropriately attribute and credit to others their accomplishments and research results which
we
may have utilized in our own research
3. Acknowledge the material contribution of others in our research undertaking
4. Utilize, distribute, or share material resources and equipment in accordance with the
conditions
set by their source or benefactor

C. Recognition of intellectual property rights (i.e., copyright, patents)*

1. Discuss among stakeholders (i.e., the author or inventor, the University, the funding source or
benefactor) the fair distribution of legal ownership of the research and/or its products
2. Distribute fairly the legal ownership of the research and/or its products among the
stakeholders

III. The Principle of Safety and Beneficence

Because we are scholars with extensive expertise in our fields, and who strive to contribute to
human and
national development, the burden is proportionately heavier on us to protect and promote the
safety and
interests of the community. In this respect, we have the following obligations, as stated below:

A. Responsible dissemination of scientific knowledge to the public

1. Call the attention of the public and the authorities to any hazard we observe that threatens
human and environmental safety
2. Inform the community of scientific knowledge pertaining to human practices, attitudes,
events,
and other phenomena that present unequivocal and significant risk or benefit to human welfare
3. Avoid making misleading or exaggerated statements, or publicizing equivocal research
findings as
fact

B. Safe and responsible conduct of research

1. Observe safety practices in all our research activities
2. Avoid deliberate violation or circumvention of regulations governing research
3. Refrain from causing harm, stress or pain to any animal in any experiment that does not
contribute any substantial benefit to human society that has not been discovered already. For
experiments on animals which cannot be avoided, it is our duty to treat them humanely,
minimize the pain and to undertake curative measures thereafter.*
4. Ensure that laboratory wastes are properly disposed or treated, and our research activities do
not
result in environmental degradation
5. Point out to our clients potential dangers or threats to their interest

C. Promotion of the interests of the community

1. To the extent that is applicable or possible, conduct research that serves the needs and
promotes
the best interests of the community or persons who will be affected by the research 3
2. To the extent that is applicable or possible, seek the involvement of the community in the
determination of their best interests and how to address them in the research

IV. The Principle of Respect for Human Rights and Dignity

In our research undertakings, we are in a position to direct or influence the behavior and attitudes
of
those who participate in and utilize our research. As scholars who defend the singular dignity of
the
human person, we are therefore obligated to uphold the rights, dignity, and autonomy of our
participants
and consumers. We do this by adhering to the obligations enumerated as follows:

A. Extension of equal treatment and respect towards research participants and consumers
1. Respect cultural, individual, and role differences among research participants and consumers,
including those based on age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity,
disability, language, or socio-economic status
2. Eliminate from our research practices and reports any biases that are based on the
aforementioned factors*

B. Humane and respectful treatment of human participants in research*

1. Desist from subjecting persons to any experiment or research procedure that is known
beforehand to cause harm, stress, or pain with no overwhelming benefit
2. Take immediate and appropriate steps to alleviate any physical or psychological harm that
may
have been inflicted on a participant because of our research procedures
3. Use deception only when justified by the studys significant prospective scientific,
educational, or
applied value and where effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible. In these
cases, the participant should be informed of the true nature of the study as soon as is feasible
and is permitted to withdraw his or her data
4. Provide participants with the opportunity to obtain information about the design, procedures,
results, and conclusions of the research

C. Guarding participants confidentiality and autonomy rights*

1. Protect our participants right to privacy and confidentiality
2. Ensure that informed consent is obtained from all human participants of our experiments or
studies. That is, participants are free to decide on their involvement only after we have provided
them with information that is relevant to that decision
3. Maintain the autonomy of participants, especially students and subordinates, by refraining
from
offering inducements that may serve to coerce them into participating
4. Safeguard the rights and welfare of persons and communities whose status and vulnerabilities
may impair autonomous decision-making

-----