Topic 1

Foundations of Research Ethics

Research ethics encompasses the moral principles that guide the conduct of research. Understanding these foundations is essential for every researcher, regardless of discipline.

Why Research Ethics Matter

Protect Participants

Ethical guidelines ensure that research participants are not harmed, deceived, or exploited in the pursuit of knowledge.

Maintain Public Trust

Science depends on public trust. Ethical conduct ensures society continues to support and benefit from research.

Ensure Validity

Ethical research is honest research. Fabrication and falsification undermine the entire scientific enterprise.

Enable Collaboration

Shared ethical standards allow researchers worldwide to work together with mutual trust and respect.

Comply with Law

Many ethical requirements are also legal requirements. Violations can lead to serious professional and legal consequences.

Do the Right Thing

Beyond rules and regulations, ethics is about doing what's right—for participants, for science, and for society.

Historical Context

Modern research ethics emerged from horrific historical abuses:

1940s

Nazi Medical Experiments

Horrific experiments on concentration camp prisoners led to the Nuremberg Code (1947)—the first international code of research ethics, establishing voluntary consent as essential.

1932-1972

Tuskegee Syphilis Study

U.S. government researchers studied untreated syphilis in Black men without their informed consent, even after treatment became available. Led to the Belmont Report (1979).

1960s

Milgram Obedience Studies

Participants were deceived into believing they were administering painful shocks. Raised questions about psychological harm and deception.

1971

Stanford Prison Experiment

Participants assigned as "guards" became abusive toward "prisoners." Demonstrated psychological harm and researcher responsibility to intervene.

The Belmont Report Principles

The Belmont Report (1979) established three fundamental principles that remain the foundation of research ethics:

1. Respect for Persons

Individuals should be treated as autonomous agents capable of making their own decisions. Those with diminished autonomy deserve protection.

Applications:
  • Informed consent
  • Right to withdraw
  • Protection of vulnerable populations
  • Confidentiality

2. Beneficence

Researchers have an obligation to maximize benefits and minimize harms. Do no harm, and maximize possible benefits.

Applications:
  • Risk-benefit analysis
  • Minimizing risks
  • Competent research design
  • Ongoing monitoring

3. Justice

The benefits and burdens of research should be distributed fairly. Those who bear research risks should share in benefits.

Applications:
  • Fair participant selection
  • No exploitation of vulnerable groups
  • Equitable access to research benefits
  • Inclusive research

Key Ethical Frameworks

Nuremberg Code (1947)

First international code; emphasis on voluntary consent

Declaration of Helsinki (1964+)

Medical research ethics; regularly updated by WMA

Belmont Report (1979)

Three principles; foundation for U.S. regulations

Common Rule (1991, revised 2018)

U.S. federal regulations for human subjects research

CIOMS Guidelines (2016)

International guidelines for biomedical research

Singapore Statement (2010)

Global principles for research integrity

Ethics Beyond Compliance

Ethics is more than following rules. A truly ethical researcher:

  • Considers the spirit, not just the letter, of ethical guidelines
  • Thinks about how research affects participants' lives
  • Asks "Should I?" not just "Can I?"
  • Seeks guidance when uncertain
  • Advocates for ethical practices in their community
Topic 2

Protecting Human Participants

Research involving human participants requires careful attention to their rights, welfare, and dignity. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) oversee this process, but researchers bear primary responsibility.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is a process—not just a form—by which participants voluntarily agree to participate after receiving complete information about the study.

Required Elements of Informed Consent

Purpose

Why the research is being done and what it aims to achieve

Procedures

What participants will be asked to do, how long it takes

Risks

Any foreseeable risks or discomforts (physical, psychological, social)

Benefits

Any direct benefits to participants or benefits to society

Alternatives

Other options available instead of participating

Confidentiality

How data will be protected and who will have access

Compensation

Any payment or reimbursement for participation

Voluntary Participation

Right to refuse or withdraw at any time without penalty

Contact Information

Who to contact with questions or concerns

Special Consent Situations

Waiver of Consent

IRB may waive consent when:

  • Research poses minimal risk
  • Waiver won't adversely affect rights
  • Research couldn't be done otherwise
  • Participants will be debriefed if appropriate

Example: Observing behavior in public spaces

Deception

Sometimes permitted when:

  • Study can't be done otherwise
  • Deception is justified by scientific value
  • No significant risks from deception
  • Thorough debriefing occurs after

Example: Social psychology experiments

Assent + Parental Permission

For minors (under 18):

  • Parents/guardians give permission
  • Child gives assent (age-appropriate agreement)
  • Child can refuse even with parental permission

Example: Research with children/adolescents

Legally Authorized Representative

When participant can't consent:

  • Cognitively impaired adults
  • Emergency research
  • LAR consents on behalf
  • Additional safeguards required

Example: Dementia research

Vulnerable Populations

Some groups require additional protections due to compromised capacity to consent or susceptibility to coercion:

Children

Cannot legally consent; require parental permission plus assent

Prisoners

Coercive environment; special federal regulations apply

Pregnant Women

Risk to fetus requires additional consideration

Cognitively Impaired

May have diminished capacity to understand and consent

Students/Employees

Power dynamics may compromise voluntariness

Economically Disadvantaged

May be unduly influenced by compensation

The IRB Review Process

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or Ethics Committees review research to protect participants. Most institutions require IRB approval before any human subjects research begins.

Levels of Review

Exempt

Minimal risk, certain categories (educational, surveys, existing data). Still requires IRB determination.

Processing: Days to weeks

Expedited

Minimal risk, doesn't fit exempt categories. Reviewed by IRB chair or designee.

Processing: 2-4 weeks

Full Board

Greater than minimal risk. Reviewed by full committee at convened meeting.

Processing: 4-8+ weeks

Tips for Successful IRB Submission

  • Start early—review takes time
  • Be thorough and honest in your application
  • Describe risks clearly and explain how you'll minimize them
  • Use plain language in consent forms
  • Consult with IRB staff before submitting
  • Respond promptly and completely to requests

Never Begin Without Approval

Collecting data before IRB approval is a serious violation. Consequences include:

  • Data cannot be used or published
  • Disciplinary action against researchers
  • Institutional sanctions
  • Federal investigation (for funded research)
  • Damage to your career and reputation
Topic 3

Research Integrity

Research integrity refers to the honest conduct of research—from data collection to publication. Violations undermine science and can end careers.

Research Misconduct

The "FFP" trio—Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism—are the most serious forms of research misconduct:

Fabrication

Making up data or results that don't exist

Examples:

  • Inventing experimental results
  • Creating fake survey responses
  • Claiming experiments that were never conducted

Falsification

Manipulating data, equipment, or processes to change results

Examples:

  • Deleting inconvenient data points
  • Altering images to hide problems
  • Selective reporting of results

Plagiarism

Presenting others' ideas or words as your own

Examples:

  • Copying text without attribution
  • Using others' ideas without citation
  • Self-plagiarism (reusing own published work)

Questionable Research Practices (QRPs)

Beyond outright misconduct, many "gray area" practices undermine research validity. These are more common but still problematic:

HARKing

Hypothesizing After Results are Known

Presenting post-hoc hypotheses as if they were a priori predictions

P-Hacking

Manipulating analyses to achieve p < .05

Running multiple analyses, adding/removing variables or data points until significance is achieved

Selective Reporting

Reporting only significant results

Not publishing negative findings; hiding failed experiments

Salami Slicing

Dividing one study into multiple publications

Artificially inflating publication count; fragmenting findings

Gift/Ghost Authorship

Improper attribution of credit

Including non-contributors or excluding contributors from authorship

Citation Manipulation

Gaming citation metrics

Self-citation rings, coercive citation, unnecessary citations

Responsible Conduct of Research

Key Principles

Honesty

Report findings truthfully; don't deceive colleagues, funders, or the public

Accuracy

Report methods and results precisely; avoid errors through careful work

Objectivity

Avoid bias in design, analysis, interpretation; disclose conflicts of interest

Transparency

Share data and methods; be open about limitations; enable replication

Accountability

Take responsibility for your work; respond to concerns; correct errors

Stewardship

Use resources responsibly; mentor others; protect the research enterprise

Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest (COI) exists when personal interests could compromise—or appear to compromise—research objectivity.

Financial

  • Industry funding
  • Stock ownership
  • Consulting fees
  • Patents/royalties

Professional

  • Career advancement
  • Publication pressure
  • Grant competition
  • Professional rivalries

Personal

  • Personal relationships
  • Ideological commitments
  • Personal beliefs
  • Desire for recognition

Managing COIs

  • Disclose: Report all potential conflicts to institutions, funders, journals, and collaborators
  • Recuse: Step back from decisions where conflicts exist
  • Manage: Implement oversight mechanisms
  • Eliminate: Divest from conflicting interests when possible

Prevention is Best

Research integrity starts with good practices:

  • Pre-register studies and analysis plans
  • Keep detailed, transparent records
  • Use version control for data and code
  • Report all findings, not just significant ones
  • Share data and materials openly
  • Correct errors promptly when discovered
Topic 4

Data Ethics and Privacy

In the age of big data, protecting participant privacy and handling data responsibly are increasingly important. Data ethics goes beyond legal compliance to consider broader implications of data collection and use.

Data Protection Principles

Data Minimization

Collect only data necessary for your research. Don't collect "just in case" data. Less data = less risk.

Purpose Limitation

Use data only for stated purposes. New uses require new consent or ethical review.

Storage Limitation

Retain data only as long as necessary. Have a data retention and destruction plan.

Security

Protect data against unauthorized access, loss, or breach. Use appropriate technical and organizational measures.

Accountability

Be responsible for data protection. Document compliance. Know who has access and why.

Transparency

Be clear with participants about what data you collect, how you'll use it, and who will access it.

Anonymization and De-identification

De-identification

Removing direct identifiers (names, ID numbers, addresses)

  • Link between data and identity may exist
  • Re-identification may be possible
  • Good for working datasets

Anonymization

Irreversibly preventing identification

  • No link to identity exists
  • Re-identification not possible
  • Required for open data sharing

Types of Identifiers

Direct Identifiers
  • Names
  • Social Security numbers
  • Email addresses
  • Phone numbers
  • Photos/biometrics
Indirect/Quasi-Identifiers
  • Birth date
  • ZIP code
  • Occupation
  • Institution
  • Rare conditions

Warning: Combinations of quasi-identifiers can often identify individuals. A rare disease + small town + age can uniquely identify someone.

Key Regulations

GDPR (EU)

General Data Protection Regulation (2018)

  • Applies to data about EU residents
  • Requires lawful basis for processing
  • Right to access, correct, delete data
  • Data breach notification required
  • Heavy penalties for violations

HIPAA (US)

Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act

  • Protects health information (PHI)
  • Applies to healthcare providers, insurers
  • Research requires authorization or waiver
  • 18 identifiers must be removed for "safe harbor"

FERPA (US)

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

  • Protects student education records
  • Parental rights for minors
  • Research exceptions exist but are limited

Common Rule (US)

Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects

  • Governs federally-funded research
  • Defines identifiable private information
  • Sets consent and IRB requirements

Data Security Practices

Access Control

  • Strong passwords, 2FA
  • Role-based access
  • Need-to-know basis

Encryption

  • Encrypt data at rest
  • Encrypt data in transit
  • Encrypt backups

Secure Storage

  • Institutional servers preferred
  • No personal devices for sensitive data
  • Approved cloud services only

Backups

  • Regular, tested backups
  • Secure backup storage
  • Recovery procedures documented

Secure Sharing

  • Encrypted file transfer
  • Data use agreements
  • Audit trails

Secure Disposal

  • Secure deletion protocols
  • Physical destruction when needed
  • Document destruction

Data Breaches

If a breach occurs:

  1. Contain the breach immediately
  2. Notify your institution's IT security and IRB
  3. Assess what data was compromised
  4. Notify affected individuals as required
  5. Report to relevant authorities (if required)
  6. Document everything

Prevention is far better than response. Take security seriously.

Topic 5

Navigating Ethical Dilemmas

Real-world research rarely presents clear-cut ethical choices. This topic provides frameworks for thinking through ethical dilemmas and discusses common challenging situations.

Framework for Ethical Decision-Making

1

Identify the Ethical Issue

What values or principles are in tension? Who might be affected? What are the potential harms?

2

Gather Information

What are the facts? What regulations apply? What have others done in similar situations?

3

Consider Stakeholders

Who are all the affected parties? What are their interests? Who has power? Who is vulnerable?

4

Identify Options

What are all possible courses of action? Are there creative alternatives? What are the consequences of each?

5

Apply Ethical Principles

How does each option align with Belmont principles? Professional codes? Your own values?

6

Consult Others

Seek advice from mentors, ethics committees, colleagues. Don't navigate difficult situations alone.

7

Decide and Act

Make a decision you can defend. Document your reasoning. Monitor outcomes.

Common Ethical Dilemmas

Dual Relationships

Scenario: Your student volunteers for your research study. Or your therapy clients ask to participate in your research.

Considerations:
  • Power dynamics may compromise voluntariness
  • Grades or treatment shouldn't depend on participation
  • Confidentiality is complicated
Best Practice:

Avoid recruiting from your own students/clients when possible. If necessary, have a third party handle recruitment and ensure non-participation has no consequences.

Witnessing Misconduct

Scenario: You discover a colleague has fabricated data, or your PI is pressuring you to change results.

Considerations:
  • Obligation to report vs. loyalty/career concerns
  • Whistleblower protections exist but may be limited
  • Certainty of wrongdoing matters
Best Practice:

Document everything. Consult with trusted mentors or your institution's research integrity officer. Report through appropriate channels. Understand whistleblower protections.

Authorship Disputes

Scenario: Who should be an author? Who should be first author? Your supervisor wants authorship but didn't contribute.

Considerations:
  • ICMJE criteria define authorship
  • Power dynamics make negotiation difficult
  • Disciplinary norms vary
Best Practice:

Discuss authorship early, before writing begins. Document contributions. Use CRediT taxonomy. Address disputes through department mediation if needed.

Discovering Harm

Scenario: During interviews, a participant reveals child abuse, suicidal intent, or serious health issues.

Considerations:
  • Confidentiality vs. duty to warn/protect
  • Mandatory reporting laws may apply
  • Participant welfare is paramount
Best Practice:

Plan for these situations in advance. Know your legal obligations. Have referral resources ready. Include exceptions in consent forms. Prioritize safety over research.

Funder Pressure

Scenario: Your industry funder doesn't want you to publish negative results, or wants to review/edit before publication.

Considerations:
  • Publication bias harms science
  • Researchers must maintain independence
  • Contracts should protect publication rights
Best Practice:

Negotiate publication rights upfront. Disclose all funding and conflicts. Resist pressure to suppress findings. Seek institutional support if pressured.

Ethical Resources

At Your Institution

  • IRB/Ethics Committee
  • Research Integrity Officer
  • Ombudsperson
  • Department chair/dean
  • Legal counsel

Professional Organizations

  • Disciplinary ethics committees
  • Professional codes of conduct
  • Ethics consultation services

Key Resources

  • ORI (Office of Research Integrity)
  • COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
  • CIOMS Guidelines
  • Declaration of Helsinki

Training

  • CITI Program
  • NIH training modules
  • Institutional RCR training

The "Newspaper Test"

When facing an ethical dilemma, ask yourself:

  • Would I be comfortable if this appeared on the front page?
  • Could I explain my decision to my mentor? My mother? A journalist?
  • Would I want my students to act this way?
  • Will I be proud of this decision in 10 years?

If you hesitate, that's a signal to think more carefully.

Summary

Module 16 Key Takeaways

What You've Learned

  • The Belmont Report principles—Respect for Persons, Beneficence, Justice—are the foundation of research ethics
  • Informed consent is an ongoing process, not just a form; it requires disclosure, understanding, and voluntariness
  • Research misconduct (FFP) and questionable research practices undermine science; prevention through good practices is essential
  • Data protection requires minimization, security, and transparency; know applicable regulations (GDPR, HIPAA, etc.)
  • Ethical dilemmas require systematic thinking, consultation, and courage; resources exist to help navigate difficult situations

Next Steps

In Module 17: Building Your Research Career, you'll learn how to develop as a researcher, build collaborations, seek funding, and navigate the academic job market.

Continue to Module 17
Practice

Ethics Practice Activities

Ethics Exercises

  1. Case Study Analysis: Analyze the Tuskegee Study, Milgram experiments, or Stanford Prison Experiment:
    • What ethical principles were violated?
    • What should have been done differently?
    • What lessons remain relevant today?
  2. Consent Form Review: Find a sample consent form and evaluate it against the required elements. What's missing? What could be clearer?
  3. Dilemma Discussion: With colleagues, discuss how you would handle:
    • A participant who reveals suicidal ideation
    • A co-author who wants credit without contribution
    • Pressure from a funder to suppress results
  4. Data Security Audit: Review your own data handling practices. Are files encrypted? Who has access? How are they backed up? Create an improvement plan.
Previous Module Next Module