Advertisement

Ethics in Laboratory Research

  • Sidd Dalal
  • Luke BrewsterEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Success in Academic Surgery book series (SIAS)

Abstract

Ethics in laboratory research has become a formalized training course, and the reasons for this are multiple. Given the multiple unique pressures experienced by surgeons, the concepts taught in these ethic courses are particularly relevant. Here the concepts will be discussed in a case-based format including issues highly relevant to surgeons.

Keywords

Ethics Integrity Objectivity Reproducibility Honesty Surgical scientist Openness 

References

  1. 1.
    Resnik DB. What is ethics in research & why is it important? 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Watson JD, Crick FH. Genetical implications of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid. Nature. 1953;171:964–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Straus SE, Chatur F, Taylor M. Issues in the mentor-mentee relationship in academic medicine: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2009;84:135–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pawlik TM, Platteborze N, Souba WW. Ethics and surgical research: what should guide our behavior? J Surg Res. 1999;87:263–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Academies of Sciences E and Medicine. Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Macrina FL. Scientific integrity. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewster LP, Greisler HP. There may be nothing new under the sun, but this is ridiculous. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:1697–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blog BLC. Integrity is who you are when no-one’s looking. 2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halloran PF, Reeve J, Kaplan B. Lies, damn lies, and statistics: the perils of the P value. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:10–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wangensteen OH. The role of the experimental laboratory in the training of surgeons. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1960;(Suppl 253):26–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Narahari AK, Mehaffey JH, Hawkins RB, Charles EJ, Baderdinni PK, Chandrabhatla AS, Kocan JW, Jones RS, Upchurch GR Jr, Kron IL, Kern JA, Ailawadi G. Surgeon scientists are disproportionately affected by declining NIH funding rates. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;226:474–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thiese MS, Walker S, Lindsey J. Truths, lies, and statistics. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:4117–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505:612–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kandel JJ. Serendipity: translational research, high quality care, and the children’s hospital. Jay and Margie Grosfeld Lecture. J Pediatr Surg. 2014;49:19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bowen A, Casadevall A. Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:11335–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lo B, Field MJ, editors. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elks ML. Conflict of interest and the physician-researcher. J Lab Clin Med. 1995;126:19–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Lopez J, Samaha G, Purvis TE, Siegel G, Jabbari J, Ahmed R, Milton J, Tufaro AP, May JW Jr, Dorafshar AH. The accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by plastic surgeons and industry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:1592–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: a possible role of editors. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22:169–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mencken HL. Prejudices: second series. New York: Knopf; 1920.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clevenger RRBJ, Talcott M, et al. Surgery. In: Weichbrod RH, Thompson GAH, Norton JN, editors. Management of animal care and use programs in research, education, and testing. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2018.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    DeGrazia D, Beauchamp TL. Guest editorial: Reassessing animal research ethics. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24:385–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    DeGrazia D. The ethics of animal research: what are the prospects for agreement? Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1999;8:23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adashi EY, Walters LB, Menikoff JA. The Belmont Report at 40: reckoning with time. Am J Public Health. 2018;108:1345–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Annas GJ. Beyond Nazi war crimes experiments: the voluntary consent requirement of the Nuremberg Code at 70. Am J Public Health. 2018;108:42–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moreno JD, Schmidt U, Joffe S. The Nuremberg Code 70 years later. JAMA. 2017;318:795–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Affairs ACoEaJ. AMA J Ethics. 2015;17:1136–41.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fanelli D, Costas R, Lariviere V. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0127556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mercer University School of MedicineMaconUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Surgery and Research SectionsAtlanta VA Medical CenterDecaturUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations