Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics in Laboratory Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science

Part of the book series: Success in Academic Surgery ((SIAS))

  • 1357 Accesses

Abstract

As novel advances are being made in the laboratory at an extraordinary pace, ethical conduct in science and biomedical research is critically important now more than ever. With the expanding horizon of science and modern medicine, new moral and ethical conflicts frequently arise. Things that were inconceivable to previous generations are at the forefront of ethical considerations including the completion of the Human Genome project, the expansion of genetic engineering, and stem cell research. The importance of ethics in the conduct of sciences is also highlighted by the emphasis that mass media places on ethical misconduct, as well as the increasing scrutiny of science’s complex financial interdependence with business and industry. Due to the growing need for ethics in science, we, as scientists, must cultivate our moral and ethical character. In this chapter, we provide an overview of ethical issues in laboratory research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pawlik TM, Colletti L. Ethics and surgical research. In: Souba WW, Wilmore DW, editors. Surgical research. San Diego: Academic; 2001. p. 1349–60.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Weaver D, Reis MH, Albanese C, Costantini F, Baltimore D, Imanishi-Kari T. Altered repertoire of endogenous immunoglobulin gene expression in transgenic mice containing a rearranged mu heavy chain gene. Cell. 1986;45:247–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sarasohn J. Science on trial: the whistle-blower, the accused, and the Nobel laureate. 1st ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Weiss R. Proposed shifts in misconduct reviews unsettle many scientists. Washington Post. 1996 Jun 30. p. A6.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hilts P. A question of ethics. New York Times. 1992 Aug 2.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hilts P. Noted finding of science fraud is overturned by a federal panel. New York Times. 1996 June 22.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Resnik DB. The ethics of science: an introduction. New York: Routledge; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fox RM, DeMarco JP. Moral reasoning: a philosophic approach to applied ethics. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grinnell F. The scientific attitude. New York/London: Guilford Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (U.S.). Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. Responsible science: ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Babbage C. Reflections on the decline of science in England. New York: Agustus Kelley; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Segerstrale U. The murky borderland between scientific intuition and fraud. Int J Appl Philos. 1990;5:11–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Resnik D. Social epistemology and the ethics of research. Stud Hist Philos Sci. 1996;27:565.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Griffiths PA. On being a scientist: responsible conduct in research. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Longino HE. Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Elks ML. Conflict of interest and the physician-researcher. J Lab Clin Med. 1995;126:19–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Guidelines for dealing with faculty conflicts of commitment and conflicts of interest in research. July 1990. Association of American Medical Colleges Ad Hoc Committee on Misconduct and Conflict of Interest in Research. Acad Med. 1990;65:487–96.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Munthe C, Welin S. The morality of scientific openness. Sci Eng Ethics. 1996;2:411–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hull D. Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Slakey F. Public science. Paper presented at: Ethical issues in physics: workshop proceedings, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, 17–18 July 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Merton RK. The normative structure of science. Sociol Sci. 1973;267:273.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Athanasiou T, Debas H, Darzi A. Key topics in surgical research and methodology. Heidelberg: Springer; 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. US Statistics. Speaking of research. 2013. http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/. Accessed 5 Feb 2013.

  25. Russell WM. A comment from a humane experimental technique perspective on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on The ethics of research involving animals. Altern Lab Anim. 2005;33:650–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Weijer C, Dickens B, Meslin EM. Bioethics for clinicians: 10. Research ethics. CMAJ. 1997;156:1153–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, vol. 18. Washington D.C.: Office for Protection of Research Risks; 1979. p. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meslin EM, Sutherland HJ, Lavery JV, Till JE. Principlism and the ethical appraisal of clinical trials. Bioethics. 1995;9:399–418.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sharrott GW. Ethics of clinical research. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39:407–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Skolnick BE. Ethical and institutional review board issues. Adv Neurol. 1998;76:253–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Pawlik TM, Platteborze N, Souba WW. Ethics and surgical research: what should guide our behavior? J Surg Res. 1999;87:263–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Eisenberg A. The art of the scientific insult. Sci Am. 1994;270:116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Foegen J. Broad definitions of sexual harassment may be counterproductive for businesses. In: Swisher KL, editor. What is sexual harassment? San Diego: Greenhaven Press; 1995. p. 69–72.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Khan KS, Nwosu CR, Khan SF, Dwarakanath LS, Chien PF. A controlled analysis of authorship trends over two decades. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:503–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 1993;269:2282–6.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Armstrong JS. Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Sci Eng Ethics. 1997;3:63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kiang NY. How are scientific corrections made? Sci Eng Ethics. 1995;1:347–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chubin DE, Hackett EJ. Peerless science: peer review and US science policy. Albany: SUNY Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Rebecca M. Dodson MD

  2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Blalock 688, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Timothy M. Pawlik MD, MPH, PhD

Authors
  1. Rebecca M. Dodson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy M. Pawlik MD, MPH, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy M. Pawlik MD, MPH, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Surgery, Vice Chair of Research, Edward G. Elcock Professor of Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA, and Co-Chief, Peripheral Vascular Surgery, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Melina R. Kibbe

  2. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, and Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Texas Heart Institute, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA

    Scott A. LeMaire

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dodson, R.M., Pawlik, T.M. (2014). Ethics in Laboratory Research. In: Kibbe, M., LeMaire, S. (eds) Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science. Success in Academic Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4736-7_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4736-7_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4735-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4736-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation