Abstract
The purpose of this article is to discuss some ethical aspects arising in the conducting and communication of medical research in the Brazilian context, and to propose actions that can control or mitigate some reprehensible behaviors. We present some typical cases that have populated the pages of scientific journals and the press, showing academic fraud and setting society in conflict with scientists, who now need to demonstrate their trustworthiness. How can we consider the development of science if what is disclosed on the topic can be manufactured or made up; that is to say, if this content is not reliable? Several responses can be found today. For example, some publishers are imposing new guidelines for research funding agencies or research institutions to engage in mechanisms to prevent fraud and promote good research practices. The goal of these measures is to ensure that research results being funded or produced under their auspices are reliable. In this article, we make an incursion into the process of production of technological knowledge—through the stages of financing, production itself, and dissemination—in an effort to identify the factors that can lead to misconduct. In the investment stage, the socioeconomic and political context is important in evaluating what should be researched, and with what goals. We discuss aspects such as coloniality and investment in ST&I, among others. Our conclusion is that the discussion on research integrity must go beyond aspects related to the researcher’s personal and professional ethics.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
II Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics (BRISPE). 2010a. II Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science, and Publication Ethics, Rio de Janeiro. Available http://www.iibrispe.coppe.ufrj.br. Accessed January 11, 2018.
II Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics (BRISPE). 2010b. Joint Statement of the II Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics (II BRISPE), Rio de Janeiro. Available http://www.iibrispe.coppe.ufrj.br/images/IIBRISPE/JoinStatement/JointStatementonResearchIntegrity_IIBRISPE_2012_English.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2018.
2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. 2010. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html. Accessed on January 17, 2018.
3rd World Conference on Research Integrity. 2013. Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. Available http://www.researchintegrity.org/Statements/Montreal%20Statement%20English.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2018.
4th World Conference on Research Integrity. 2015. Research Rewards and Integrity: Improving Systems to Promote Responsible Conduct. Available http://www.wcri2015.org/index.php. Accessed January 11, 2018.
Almeida, F., A. Seixas, P. Gama, and P. Peixoto. 2015. A fraude académica no Ensino Superior em Portugal: um estudo sobre a ética dos alunos Portugueses [Academic Fraud in Higher Education in Portugal: A Study on the Ethics of Portuguese Students]. Coimbra: Editora da Universidade de Coimbra. Available http://hdl.handle.net/10316.2/38480. Accessed mai 19, 2017. [in Portuguese].
Angell, M. 2000. Is Academic Medicine for Sale? New England Journal of Medicine 342 (20): 1516–1518.
Assis, W.F.T. 2014. Do colonialismo à colonialidade: expropriação territorial na periferia do capitalismo [From Colonialism to Coloniality: Land Expropriation on the Periphery of Capitalism]. Salvador: Caderno CRH, v. 27, n. 72, 613–627, set./dez. [in Portuguese].
Associação Brasileira de Editores Científicos (ABEC). 2018. Available: https://www.abecbrasil.org.br/. [in Portuguese].
Barone, M. 2002. War is Too Important to be Left to the Generals. The Weekly Standard June 10, 2002. Available at https://www.weeklystandard.com/michael-barone/war-is-too-important-to-be-left-to-the-generals.
Brasil. 2012. Em Discussão. Revista de audiência pública do senado federal ano 3, no. 12, setembro de 2012 “Investimento em pesquisa e desenvolvimento, ciência, tecnologia e inovação no Brasil” [In Discussion. Public Hearing Magazine of the Federal Senate 3(12); September 2012 “Investment in research and development, science, technology and innovation in Brazil”]. http://www.senado.gov.br/NOTICIAS/JORNAL/EMDISCUSSAO/inovacao/ciencia-tecnologia-e-inovacao-no-brasil.aspx. Accessed on January 17, 2018. [in Portuguese].
Brasil. 2015. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia. Agenda nacional de prioridades de pesquisa em saúde/Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos, Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia [National Agenda for Health Research Priorities/Ministry of Health, Secretariat for Science, Technology and Strategic Inputs, Department of Science and Technology], 2 ed, 4. reimpr, 68 p. Brasília: Editora do Ministério da Saúde. [in Portuguese].
Brasil. 2018. Lei Nº 13.243, de 11 de janeiro de 2016. Available at http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2016/lei/l13243.htm. Accessed on June 11, 2018. [in Portuguese].
Carvalho, A.C.B., J.P.S. Perfeito, L.V.C. Silva, L.S. Ramalho, R.F.O. Marques, and D. Silveira. 2011. Regulation of Herbal Medicines in Brazil: Advances and Perspectives. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 47 (3).
Chalmers, I., M.B. Bracken, B. Djulbegovic, S. Garattini, J. Grant, A.M. Gülmezoglu, D.W. Howells, J.P.A. Ioannidis, and S. Oliver. 2014. How to Increase Value and Reduce Waste When Research Priorities are Set. The Lancet 383 (9912): 156–165. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01406736/383/9912 or https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 2018a. History. Available at https://publicationethics.org/about/history. Accessed May 29, 2018.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 2018b. Guidelines. Available https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines. Accessed January 11, 2018.
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). 2012. Diretrizes sobre Integridade em Pesquisa [Guidelines on Research Integrity]. Available at http://cnpq.br/diretrizes. Accessed January 11, 2018. [in Portuguese].
Council of Science Editors (CSE). 2012. White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update (approved by the CSE Board of Directors on March 30, 2012). Available at https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf.
Council of Science Editors. 2018. History of CSE. Available https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/about/history-of-cse/. Accessed January 11, 2018.
Deyo, R.A. 2004. Gaps, Tensions, and Conflicts in the FDA Approval Process: Implications for Clinical Practice. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 17: 142–149. Available at http://www.jabfm.org/content/17/2/142.full.pdf+html. Accessed January 10, 2018.
Eco, U. 1977. Como si scrive ina tesi de laurea?. Milano: Editore Bompiani. [in Italian].
Escobar, H. 2017. Orçamento de ciência e tecnologia pode encolher ainda mais em 2018 [Science and Technology Budget May Shrink Even Further in 2018]. Caderno Ciência, Jornal O Estado de São Paulo, 11 Julho 2017. DIsponível em http://ciencia.estadao.com.br/blogs/herton-escobar/orcamento-de-ciencia-e-tecnologia-pode-encolher-ainda-mais-em-2018/. Accessed May 30, 2018. [in Portuguese].
European Science Foundation. 2007. ESF-ORI First World Conference on Research Integrity: Fostering Responsible Research. ESF, Archives. http://archives.esf.org/index.php?id=4479. Accessed on January 17, 2018.
Fang, F.C., R.G. Steen, and A. Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (42): 17028–17033.
Fiori, J.L. 2007. O poder global e a nova geopolítica das nações [The Global Power and the New Geopolitics of Nations]. São Paulo: Boitempo Editorial. [in Portuguese].
Freire, P. 1987. Pedagogia do oprimido [Pedagogy of the Oppressed] 17ª. Ed. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. [in Portuguese].
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP). 2014. Código de Boas Práticas Científicas [Code of Good Scientific Practice]. Available http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/FAPESP-Codigo_de_Boas_Praticas_Cientificas_2014.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2018. [in Portuguese].
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ). 2014. Acesso aberto [Open Access]. Available at https://portal.fiocruz.br/acessoaberto. Accessed on May 30, 2018. [in Portuguese].
Grieneisen, M.L., and M. Zhang. 2012. A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature. PLoS ONE 7 (10): e44118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118).
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). 2017. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals Updated December 2017. Available at http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed on January 15, 2018.
John Willey Best and Sons, Ltda Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics A Publisher’s Perspective, 2nd ed. Available https://authorservices.wiley.com/asset/Ethics_Guidelines_7.06.17.pdf. Accessed on January 11, 2018.
Lurie, P., and S.M. Wolfe. 1997. Unethical Trials of Interventions to Reduce Perinatal Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Developing Countries. The New England Journal of Medicine 337 (12): 853–856.
Martinson, B.C., M.S. Anderson, and R. De-Vries. 2005. Scientists Behaving Badly. Nature 435: 737–738.
Medicines Australia. 2018. Educational Event Reports. Medicines Australia 2009 Educational Event Reports. Available: https://medicinesaustralia.com.au/code-of-conduct/transparency-reporting/previous-transparency-reports/educational-event-reports/. Accessed on January 17, 2018.
Merton, R.K. 1968. The Matthew Effect in Science. Science 159 (3810): 56–63.
N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 573–576 August 19, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199308193290812. Available at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308193290812. Accessed on January 17, 2018.
OECD. 2004. Declaration on Access to Research Data from Public Funding. Science, Technology, and Innovation for the 21st Century. Meeting of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy at Ministerial Level, 29–30 January 2004—Final Communique. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/sciencetechnologyandinnovationforthe21stcenturymeetingoftheoecdcommitteeforscientificandtechnologicalpolicyatministeriallevel29-30january2004-finalcommunique.htm.
Office of Research Integrity (ORI). 2018a. Historical Background. https://ori.hhs.gov/historical-background. Accessed January 11, 2018.
Office of Research Integrity (ORI). 2018b. Case Summary: Sudbo, Jon. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-sudbo-jon. Accessed January 08, 2018.
Office of Research Integrity (ORI). 2018c. Case Summary—Eric T. Poehlman. Available at http://ori.hhs.gov/poehlman_notice. Accessed January 11, 2018.
Packer, A.L., and R. Meneghini. 2014. O SciELO aos 15 anos: raison d’être, avanços e desafios para o futuro [The SciELO to 15 years raison d’être, Progress and Challenges for the Future], 15–18. In: A.L. Packer, N. Cop, A. Luccisano, et al., orgs. SciELO - 15 Anos de Acesso Aberto: um estudo analítico sobre Acesso Aberto e comunicação científica [SciELO - 15 Years of Open Access: An Analytical Study on Open Access and Scientific Communication]. Paris: UNESCO, 2014, 188 p. ISBN 978-92-3701-237-6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.7476/9789237012376. [in Portuguese].
Page, L. 2017. Sunshine Act: Are Doctors Still Enjoying Free Lunches From Drug Reps? Medscape, November 21, 2017. Available at https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/885792_2. Accessed on January 17, 2018.
Palácios, M., Rego, S., Lino, M.H. 2008. Promoção e propaganda de medicamentos em ambientes de ensino: elementos para o debate [Promotion and Drug Advertising in Teaching Environments: Elements for Debate]. Interface (Botucatu) 27 (12). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1414-32832008000400018. Accessed on January 17, 2018. [in Portuguese].
Quijano, A. 1988. Colonialidad del poder, y conocimiento cultura en América Latina [Coloniality of Power, Knowledge and Culture in Latin America] (Análisis). Ecuador Debate. Descentralización: entre lo global y lo local, Quito, n. 4, 227–238, ago. [in Spanish].
Rego, S., and M. Palácios. 2016. Ética e democracia em tempos de crise [Ethics and Democracy in Times of Crisis]. Saúde em Debate. Rio de Janeiro, v. 40, n. especial, 63–72, DEZ 2016. [in portuguese].
Reich, E.S. 2011. Biologist Spared Jail for Grant Fraud. Nature 474 (552): 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/474552aAccessonJan17.
Roseman, M., E.H. Turner, J. Lexchin, J.C. Coyne, L.A. Bero, and B.T. Thombs. 2012. Reporting of Conflicts of Interest from Drug Trials in Cochrane Reviews: Cross Sectional Study. BMJ 345: e5155. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5155. Published 21 August 2012.
Schnirring, L. 2012. Mutações H5N1, outros detalhes revelados na reunião H5N1 [H5N1 Mutations, Other Details Revealed in the H5N1 Meeting]. University of Minnesota, CIDRAP. Available www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/04/h5n1-mutations-other-details-unveiled-h5n1-meeting. Accessed on January 17, 2018. [in Portuguese].
Singer, P. 2000. A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation. Yale University Press.
Singh, N. 2016. Scientometric Analysis of Research on Zika Virus. Virusdisease 27 (3): 303–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13337-016-0339-3.
Steinman, M.A., M.G. Shlipak, and S.J. McPhee. 2001. Of Principles and Pens: Attitudes and Practices of Medicine Housestaff Toward Pharmaceutical Industry Promotions. The American Journal of Medicine 110: 551–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00660-X. Accessed on January 17, 2018.
Thompson, D.F. 1993. Understanding Financial Conflicts of Interest. New England Journal of Medicine 329 (8): 573–576.
USA. 2009. Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009. Available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/301/text. Accessed on January 17, 2018.
Warde, I.A. 2001. Casamento Por Dinheiro À Moda Liberal: A Universidade Norte-Americana Sugada Pelos Mercadores [Marriage for Money to Liberal Fashion: The American University Sucked Those Merchants]. Le Monde diplomatique [Portuguese]. March, 2001. disponível em http://ibrahimwarde.com/articles/casamento-por-dinheiro-%C3%A0-moda-liberal-universidade-norte-americana-sugada-pelos-mercadores. Accessed on January 17, 2018. [in Portuguese].
Ziman, J. 1996. Is Science Losing Its Objectivity? Nature 382: 751–754. https://doi.org/10.1038/382751a0. Accessed on January 17, 2018.
Acknowledgements
We thank Katie Stallard, LLB, from Edanz Group for editing a draft of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Palácios, M., Rego, S. (2019). Ethics in Conducting and Communicating Research: A Brazilian Perspective. In: Rivera-López, E., Hevia, M. (eds) Controversies in Latin American Bioethics. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 79. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17963-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17963-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17962-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17963-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)