Skip to main content

Ethics of Conducting Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover How to Write Better Medical Papers
  • 2195 Accesses

Abstract

Medical research must be conducted ethically. That requires preparation before beginning to collect any data. It is the one most important matter to attend to before starting the research, because it is the one aspect that cannot be corrected later during the writing phase. Moreover, laying a solid ethical foundation for the research before it ever starts will substantially improve the scientific quality of the research as well. This book is not about how to conduct research, nor about the ethics of research, so these topics will not be discussed in much depth here. But they must be presented briefly, because the quality of the papers depends fundamentally on these matters and because the Methods section of any paper must make reference to the ethical aspects of the research. There are four main elements for ethical research: ethics committee approval, study registration, written informed consent or animal welfare, and following ethical guidelines.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Emanuel EJ. Institutional Review Board Reform. NEJM. 2002; 347: 1285-1286.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Accessed on 10 January 2018 at: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

    Google Scholar 

  3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1978, 2017. Accessed on 12 January 2018 at: www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

  4. Enfield KB, Truwit JD. The Purpose, Composition, and Function of an Institutional Review Board: Balancing Priorities. Respir Care. 2008; 53: 1330-1336.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwenzer KJ. Practical Tips for Working Effectively With Your Institutional Review Board. Respir Care. 2008; 53: 1354-1361.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Colt HG, Mulnard RA. Writing an Application for a Human Subjects Institutional Review Board. Chest. 2006; 130: 1605-1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rice TW. How to Do Human-Subjects Research If You Do Not Have an Institutional Review Board. Respir Care. 2008; 53: 1362-1367.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lemaire F. Do All Types of Human Research Need Ethics Committee Approval? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006; 174: 363-364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boyce M. Observational study of 353 applications to London multicentre research ethics committee 1997-2000. BMJ. 2002; 325: 1081.

    Google Scholar 

  10. DeAngelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marušić A, Overbeke AJPM, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB. Clinical Trial Registration: A Statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM. 2004; 351: 1250-1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Weber WEJ, Merino JG, Loder E. Trial registration 10 years on: The single most valuable tool we have to ensure unbiased reporting of research studies. BMJ. 2015; 351: h3572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009; 374: 86-89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Djulbegovic B, Atkins D, Falck-Ytter Y, Williams JW Jr., Meerpohl J, Norris SL, Akl EA, Schünemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1277-1282.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenthal R. The “File Drawer Problem” and Tolerance for Null Results. Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 638-641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Paris: UNESCO; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Neff MJ. Informed Consent: What Is It? Who Can Give It? How Do We Improve It? Respir Care. 2008; 53: 1337-1341.

    Google Scholar 

  17. del Carmen MG, Joffe S. Informed Consent for Medical Treatment and Research: A Review. Oncologist. 2005; 10: 636-641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bramstedt KA. A guide to informed consent for clinician-investigators. Cleve Clin J Med. 2004; 71: 907-910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lentz J, Kennett M, Perlutter J, Forrest A. Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: Recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016; 49: 65-69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cressey D. Informed consent on trial. Nature. 2012; 482: 16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rossel M, Burnier M, Stupp R. Informed Consent: True Information or Institutional Review Board–Approved Disinformation? J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 5835-5836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C. The Therapeutic Misconception: Informed Consent in Psychiatric Research. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1982; 5: 319-329.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False Hopes and Best Data: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987; 17: 20-24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS. The Therapeutic Misconception: Problems and Solutions. Med Care. 2002; 40: V55-V63.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Council for Laboratory Animal Science. International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals, December 2012. Accessed on 7 January 2018 at: iclas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/CIOMS-ICLAS-Principles-Final.pdf

  27. Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioral research and teaching. Animal Behavior. 2012; 83: 301-309.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith R. Animal research: the need for a middle ground. BMJ. 2001; 322: 248-249.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA, USA: Belknap Press; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kant I. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Leipzig: Verlag von Felix Meiner; 1785, 1792, 1947.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hanna, M. (2019). Ethics of Conducting Research. In: How to Write Better Medical Papers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02954-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02955-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics