The Role of Ethics in Scientific Research
The Greek philosophers have related their moral life to the concepts of ethics a long time back. The idea of ethics is mainly considered the sophisticated system of principles which has appropriate amount of potentia f changing the previous consideration critically through choices and actions. It is additionally identified that ethics provides a significant power to the decision maker on deciding what is right and what is wrong with the philosophical perspective (Taebi, van den Hoven and Bird 2019). Along with different human activities, the community governs the scientific research work too. Societal and individual values are considered different activities from their own perspectives. The research ethics requirements are naturally providing a better and more involved work where ethics is involved at a daily pace (Luo and Qin 2020). The information is published after the research is provided and the subject’s dignity is well protected. There are some significant norms regarding the scientific conduct where it is adhered to the academic research because of multiple reasons.
In case of maintaining the authenticity of the results, the increasing factor of public perception is important as the public will be judging and accepting new results that may enhance the credibility of the scientific community. The importance of research ethics lies with the maintenance of credibility while conducting the research work irrespective of any biases. Ethics usually just comes into the scenario when the research work involves animals and human beings. The importance of differentiating unacceptable and acceptable research work is essential while conducting experiments involving animals and human participants (Nguyen and Dellaportas 2020). Without the appropriate understanding of the concern, no scientific research work will be successfully conducted as the work will lack the ethical considerations. Most of the time, research work is dependent where researchers are collaborating among each other and other different groups. Here the research ethics will support all the values that are the net results of collaborative work including mutual respect and fairness. In case of any research work, the researchers are generally held responsible for their individual decisions and actions.
Most of the studies and research works are supported with public money which is why the studies need to maintain and operate in accordance to the regulations on misconduct and conflicts and interest by ensuring that no injustice has been done towards the humans and animals and the money is well spent (Simelane-Mnisi 2018). The public money funding system plays an essential role in providing ethical considerations and confidence to the research ethics by ensuring the social values and the moral is maintained while conducting the entire study. The crucial principle in this case is focused on certain moral and social values.
Responsibility of Researchers
The Australian Research Council is the responsible personnel to monitor the intervention of research ethics. This personnel ensures that all the high standards of integrity are implemented within the different aspects of research. ARC is the responsible organization which ensures that the support and development of a research environment is entirely grounded on the basis of integrity in the culture (Sivasubramaniam et al. 2021). The ARC also ensures the ARC-funded research is following the appropriate ethical, professional and legal frameworks while conducting the research work. The relevant standards and obligations are properly acknowledged while conducting the research work. There are significant guidelines and codes which exist within the Australian research study ground such as, The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007), The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (2012), The Australian Code For The Care And Use Of Animals For Scientific Purposes 8th edition (2013), The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018). These guidelines include the importance of ethical considerations which will be reviewed by the Australian Research Council organization.
In this particular study, the crucial research area has been chosen to be the area where ethics plays a crucial role in the research work of nursing. It has been identified that nursing research is mostly focused on the patients safety improvement purposes by studying and developing new therapies, behavioral therapies, pharmacological treatments and other aspects with the involvement of human participants (Knottnerus and Tugwell 2018). The primary requirements of any nurse is based on the three primary values systems such as Society, Science and Nursing. The core foundation of the nursing profession is based on providing safety, care, security and service to the patients with the involvement of appropriate ethical, social and societal values.Although there are situations when communities, societies and subjects may create complex dilemmas and conflicts in nursing. This is the section where the different ethical issues in the nursing research segments will be identified and handled.
The primary ethical issue within the research area of nursing is “Informed Consent”. Human participation creates a significant problem because voluntary, intelligent and knowing participation might not be as easy to get as it sounds. In the most important way the autonomy of the patients and the human beings are protected by the provided consent form. Autonomy is the basic fundamental right of any and every person (Ventura et al. 2021). The autonomy helps them to self determine their choice during decision making proposes. The informed consent should always include the primary purpose of the study so that the explanation of selecting participants and the procedure which needs to be is clear to the researcher. Without the appropriate consent form if any privacy invention, threat of discomfort or physical harm is caused then the lack of dignity will be continuously highlighted.
Guidelines and Codes in Australian Research Study Ground
The significant second issue is identified to be the “Autonomy and confidentiality”. These two perceptions of ethical issues are directly related to dignity and fidelity. In case the personal responses are unlinked to the subject identity then the utonomity is protected but if the researchers fail to protect the individual autonomy then they have to consider confidentiality. Confidentiality is constructed through protecting the personal subject identity and private information by the management (Rainer, Schneider and Lorenz 2018). Confidentiality ensures the limitations and fee will of sharing subjective information about a person’s responses. For any researcher the idea of confidentiality is based on the natural law of loyalty. In most of the cases the qualitative studies and research work conducted by the researchers face several issues as the issues are based on maintaining the confidentiality of the sample size as it is smaller in size. The research is conducted personally and the interview quotations display the final report properly. This particular issue of maintaining confidentiality can be resolved with the help of identifying the interview details in a pseudonym and distorted manner when transcribing the recorded tapes (Sasso et al. 2018).
The Federal Government of Australia enacted The Privacy Act (1988) to primarily emphasize the privacy and patents’ rights of the patients in respect of legislation. Privacy provides a significant sense of freedom to the individual where they can independently determine the general circumstances and time under which they might withhold the significant private information. Privacy is primarily invaded when any individual shares the information of another person without their knowledge and consent. It is always believed that every researcher should respect the patients’ opinions without being judgemental or biased. Any private information regarding age, income, marital status or other details can be considered to be the object of private information. The concern of invading patients’ privacy may result in loss of employment, losing friendship or dignity and may experience feelings of guilt, embarrassment and shame. In order to make sure that the patients’ privacy is maintained, the researchers should always measure the ethical issues to protect the private information of the patients to omit the chance of physical, psychological or social damage (Haddad and Geiger 2018).
At the Harvard School and Brigham, Dr. Piero Anversa is a renowned heart researcher who has also worked in Boston Women’s Hospital. He fabricated and falsified 31 journal article based data which were retracted and later found to be true. The researcher suggested that “Damaged heart cells can be possibly regretted through Stem Cells”. The doctor added that stem cells are a significant type of cell which can transform itself into a variety of other cells if controlled conditionally (Y?ld?z 2019). The misconduct done on the behalf of Dr. Anversa and his team led several to form strat-up companies to develop new treatments where heart attacks and strokes will be the primary concern in relation to the statement of transformational stem cells. This statement even led the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to influence clinical trials on this basis. It was identified that other laboratories were unable to replicate the work and findings of the researcher. Once the news came, other researchers from different countries went into shock (Ellis 2020). The retraction of the 31 articles was never heard off, stated by the Associate director of Cardiovascular research, Gladstone Institutes. This particular “so-called” invention arised questions on the entire field of research.
Ethical Issues in Nursing Research
In 2001, the researcher claimed and stated that contrary to scientific consensus, regeneration of heart cells and muscles is a possibility. It was additionally claimed by the researcher that stem cells can be taken from the bone marrow and it can be injected into the heart and the stem cells will turn into heart cells by eliminating and repairing the damages. After the researcher claimed the statement to be true, all over the world different researchers wanted to test the findings (Blažun Vošner et al. 2017). Different companies were formed depending on Dr. Aversa’s claim of replacing damaged heart cells with stem cells to repair the damage. After different laboratories and researchers tried to test the findings of Dr. Anversa they failed and at that moment, the Women’s Hospital and Brigham retracted the papers published by them and complained to the relevant departments. The Department of Justice convicted Dr Jan Kajstura, Dr. Annarosa Leri and Dr. Anversa for knowingly falsifying and manipulating information of 31 journal articles along with Carbon 14 age data cell and confocal microscope images (West 2020). This particular information was later submitted to the NIH in order to get the research grant regarding the argued possibility of stem cells transforming itself into heart cells through repairing damaged muscles in case of heart attacks and strokes. It was later identified by the government that the identified problems while reviewing the work had several improper protocols, invaid ad misleading record keeping system and inaccurate characterisation of stem cells. All these problems and issues were mostly deliberate.
According to the Principle 1 of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct to Research expects honesty in development and undertaking or reporting research. This principle stated the importance of accuracy of the information and truthfulness is the matter of concern. Dr. Anversa breached this particular code when he reported falsified information in all those journal articles. It has been previously identified that most of the researchers replicate significant findings to contribute and benefit their own community and nation (Butts and Rich 2019). But in case the original report is based on falsified data then the financial resources and the waste of time is generated by the researchers in trying to get the same findings.
Researchers always should compromise with their responsibility to promote adequate and effective research practices throughout their research work. In case they fail to practice adequately then they are knowingly conducting a scientific fraud. This particular statement or argument is relevant to Principle 8 of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct to Research. This particular principle focuses on the research environment which is supporting the responsible research work which deserves to be fostered and promoted (Chong and Lee 2017). However, in this particular case study, the researcher is knowingly promoting inadequate research information and practices that is impacting the entire science field and the researchers as a whole. The significant research practices were also identified to have completely violated the regulations, ethics, guidelines and protocols and it was entirely unethical.
According to the Principle 7 of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct to Research, Dr. Anversa violated all the relevant protocols, legislations and guidelines of ensuring the adequate research practice. The principle additionally ensures that the consequences and outcomes of the study are maintained properly before publishing them. Dr. Anversa’s actions and research practices were entirely irrelevant to the 7th principle (Gallagher 2017). The research was inadequately conducted by the researcher by avoiding all the regulations and did not use the fund provided by NIH as the protocols and legislations were completely avoided while conducting the entire research. In the research work field misconduct of research related to data falsification is not common and it is mostly identified in case of clinical trials when a new drug or new therapy is developed for certain suggested treatments. It has been justified that no principle of morality and ethics can be embedded within a researcher who knowingly misconducts research practices and provides falsified data for their own convenience and purposes. This act eventually impacts the entire community more widely (Ingham-Broomfield 2017).
The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct to Research has always stated that there are certain responsibilities that the researcher has to follow while conducting any scientific research. Among many such findings, one celebrates the concern of ensuring that all the findings are accurate, truthful, responsible and broadly disseminated before publishing such journals and articles. In case any mistakes have occurred the researcher should take appropriate considerations and mitigating strategies to correct such mistakes within the time given (Boswell and Cannon 2022). In the case of Dr. Anversa, this particular code was also breached as the researcher deliberately presented wrong information and images about the specific data. Here, the researcher was asked about it and even then the researcher denied all the allegations and still responds that all the data are original and it was never falsified.
Dr. Anversa has breached all of the research ethics and codes that must be followed at any cost for conducting the research. In this case, the researcher has failed to follow the protocols, regulations, guidelines and legislations and deliberately provided inaccurate and falsified information to the public throughout his journals and articles. Dr. Anversa also claimed to face significant issues while performing his research work and denied all the allegations about falsification and fabrication on his own research. The entire research was wrong and falsified by the researcher due to which regulations were entirely broken (Scott 2017). Here the information of Stem cells repairing the damaged heart cells and transforming into them is a false statement that has no clinical evidence or proof. The regeneration of the heart cells is possible through stem cells by considering bone marrow is a hoax which is why all the researchers across the globe failed to acknowledge and get the similar findings even though they have replicated the research work. After Dr. Anversa and his colleagues were convicted with the allegation of falsification and fabrication of information, they did not hesitate to deny that the data is original and is not falsified. Breaching all the codes of research ethics and guidelines eventually led Dr. Anversa towards destruction and conviction because the entire research fund was wasted and spent elsewhere than completing the research work accurately. The wastage of time and human resources are indicating an entire research work failure. The entire case study is stating that the scientific misconduct is present in the research work done by Dr. Anversa and his associates.
References
Blažun Vošner, H., Železnik, D., Kokol, P., Vošner, J. and Završnik, J., 2017. Trends in nursing ethics research: Mapping the literature production. Nursing ethics, 24(8), pp.892-907.
Boswell, C. and Cannon, S., 2022. Introduction to nursing research: Incorporating evidence-based practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Butts, J.B. and Rich, K.L., 2019. Nursing ethics. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Chong, Y.R. and Lee, Y.H., 2017. Affecting factors of the awareness of biomedical ethics in nursing students. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education, 23(4), pp.389-397.
Ellis, P., 2020. Understanding ethics for nursing students. Sage.
Gallagher, A., 2017. Care ethics and nursing practice. In Key concepts and issues in nursing ethics (pp. 55-68). Springer, Cham.
Haddad, L.M. and Geiger, R.A., 2018. Nursing ethical considerations.
Ingham-Broomfield, R., 2017. A nurses’ guide to ethical considerations and the process for ethical approval of nursing research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, The, 35(1), pp.40-47.
Jeong, G., 2020. The effect of nursing students satisfaction in major and consciousness of biomedical ethics on nursing professionalism. Journal of The Korean Society of Integrative Medicine, 8(1), pp.77-86.
Knottnerus, J.A. and Tugwell, P., 2018. Ethics of research methodology requires a methodology of research ethics. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 100, pp.v-vi.
Luo, Q. and Qin, T., 2020. Managing clinical trials for covid-19: the importance of ethics committees. Bmj, 369.
Nguyen, L.A. and Dellaportas, S., 2020. Accounting ethics education research: A historical review of the literature. Accounting Ethics Education, pp.44-80.
Rainer, J., Schneider, J.K. and Lorenz, R.A., 2018. Ethical dilemmas in nursing: An integrative review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(19-20), pp.3446-3461.
Sasso, L., Delogu, B., Carrozzino, R., Aleo, G. and Bagnasco, A., 2018. Ethical issues of prison nursing: A qualitative study in Northern Italy. Nursing ethics, 25(3), pp.393-409.
Scott, P.A. ed., 2017. Key concepts and issues in nursing ethics. Springer.
Simelane-Mnisi, S., 2018. Role and importance of ethics in research. In Ensuring research integrity and the ethical management of data (pp. 1-13). IGI Global.
Sivasubramaniam, S., Dlabolová, D.H., Kralikova, V. and Khan, Z.R., 2021. Assisting you to advance with ethics in research: an introduction to ethical governance and application procedures. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), pp.1-18.
Taebi, B., van den Hoven, J. and Bird, S.J., 2019. The importance of ethics in modern universities of technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(6), pp.1625-1632.
Ventura, C.A.A., Austin, W., Carrara, B.S. and de Brito, E.S., 2021. Nursing care in mental health: Human rights and ethical issues. Nursing ethics, 28(4), pp.463-480.
West, E., 2020. Ethics and integrity in nursing research. Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity, pp.1051-1069.
Y?ld?z, E., 2019. Ethics in nursing: A systematic review of the framework of evidence perspective. Nursing ethics, 26(4), pp.1128-1148.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
