This is a presentation I gave to the Research Coordinators in the Federal Ministry of Health, Sudan (04.03.2015).
It included the following topics:
• Overview on the Knowledge Management Cycle and how research fits in it
• Brief historical background on research ethics
• What makes research ethical?
• Definition and examples of scientific misconduct
• How to make your research ethical and avoid scientific misconduct?
This document discusses redundant publication in research. It defines redundant publication as publishing the same or similar research findings in multiple papers without proper attribution. There are three main types: duplicate publication, salami slicing, and overlapping publications. Redundant publication undermines research integrity and credibility. It can damage researchers' reputations and lead to retractions or penalties. The document provides guidelines from organizations like COPE and ICMJE for ethical publishing practices to avoid redundant publication.
Predatory publishers and journals exploit academic authors by charging publication fees without providing proper editorial and quality review services. They prioritize profits over quality. Characteristics include lack of peer review, editorial boards, and transparency about fees and operations. Jeffrey Beall created criteria to help identify predatory journals, and Cabell's Blacklist now catalogs over 4,000 questionable journals. Savitribai Phule Pune University developed a software tool to help researchers identify predatory publications. Several journal selection tools can also help match articles to legitimate journals.
The involvement of multiple individuals in different capacities naturally evokes the question of who should be credited and held accountable for the research published, especially since careers, ethics, and scientific integrity are at stake. This article outlines the major concepts pertaining to authorship.
A conflict of interest arises whenever there is any potential bias that could affect a researcher’s work. Avoid post-publication headaches by disclosing all conflicts of interest upfront.
In academia, the pressure to publish is high and the competition intense. This can lead authors to follow unethical publication practices, such as salami slicing, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submission. This slide deck explains these malpractices and shares tips on how authors can avoid them.
Ethical research and publication practices are essential for honest scholarly and scientific research. Most journals today are keenly aware of this: they publish policies on these issues and expect authors to “be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics”.This article discusses two widespread and related publishing practices that are considered unethical—duplicate publication and simultaneous submission. It draws on definitive international publication ethics guidelines.
Sherpa provides two tools - SHERPA/RoMEO and SHERPA/FACT - to help researchers comply with open access mandates from their funders. SHERPA/RoMEO allows users to search publisher and journal policies on copyright and self-archiving. SHERPA/FACT combines RoMEO and JULIET data to indicate a journal's open access compliance based on the user's selected funder and publication stage. Both tools aim to help unlock the potential of research by facilitating open access.
Violation of publication ethics can take several forms, including data manipulation, duplicate publication, simultaneous submission, plagiarism, and salami slicing. Upholding publication ethics is important to establish the integrity and credibility of scholarly research. It is the responsibility of authors to avoid fabricating or manipulating data, plagiarizing, submitting manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously, or including guest authors who did not meaningfully contribute. Organizations like COPE and ICMJE provide guidelines to help authors, editors, and reviewers maintain high standards of ethical publication practices.
This document provides information about open access publishing. It defines open access as providing online access to scientific information that is free of charge and free of most copyright restrictions. Some key benefits of open access mentioned are increased visibility, promotion of research efficiency, and public availability of publicly funded research results. The document discusses various approaches to open access such as the green road of self-archiving and the gold road of publishing in open access journals. It also outlines some barriers to open access like financial costs and legal issues regarding intellectual property rights. Overall, the document provides a high-level overview of open access publishing models and initiatives.
This document discusses scientific misconduct in publishing, including various types of misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. It outlines reasons for misconduct like desire for advancement and pressure to publish. Major types discussed include fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, peer review manipulation, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, and conflict of interest. Consequences of misconduct are outlined for society, fellow researchers, medical practitioners, and individuals. The Committee on Publication Ethics is presented as a resource for editors on publication ethics issues.
This document discusses publication ethics and outlines guidelines for ethical publishing. It begins by defining publication and the key parties involved - authors, editors, peer reviewers, and publishers. Authors should contribute significantly to the work and properly attribute contributions from others. Unethical practices include guest and gift authorships, plagiarism, and research fraud through fabrication or falsification of data. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed. Predatory journals are identified as having questionable standards and practices aimed at profit rather than quality. UGC works to identify and remove predatory journals from their listings to help researchers identify legitimate publication options. Overall the document provides guidance on ethical authorship, reviewing, editing and publishing of research.
CONTENTS :
INTRODUCTION
TRANSPARENCY
PROMOTING RESEARCH INTEGRITY
EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
RESPONSIBLE PUBLICATION PRACTICES
OWNERSHIP OF IDEAS AND EXPRESSION
This presentation discusses the importance of publication ethics. It defines ethics as dealing with moral principles, and publication ethics as ensuring high-quality scientific publications, public trust in findings, and proper attribution of ideas. It discusses the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which was established in 1997 to discuss publication ethics issues and advise editors. The importance of publication ethics is that it promotes objective research, supports collaboration, ensures accountability, and builds public trust in research findings. Research and publication ethics are closely connected, as published work enters the public domain and must ensure scientific progress, protect life, promote ethical behavior, and support researchers' reputations.
This document discusses scientific misconduct in research such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. It notes that fabrication is the invention of data and falsification is the alteration of experimental results. While rates of misconduct vary, some studies suggest 2-14% of scientists have engaged in fabrication or falsification. Motivations for misconduct include academic pressure and desire for recognition. Consequences include career damage, loss of credentials, and erosion of public trust in research. Preventing misconduct requires strong policies, oversight, and education regarding ethical research practices.
The document discusses several key topics in philosophy including ethics, moral philosophy, and the nature of moral judgements. It can be summarized as follows:
1. Ethics (or moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with defining right and wrong conduct. It examines moral principles and rules that guide people's decisions about what is right or wrong.
2. Moral philosophy refers to the specific principles or rules that people use to make judgements about the morality of actions.
3. Moral judgements evaluate actions as right or wrong by comparing them to a moral standard. They are normative and involve applying standards to actions, rather than just describing facts.
EMPHNET-PHE Course: Module seven ethical issues in public health research& in...Dr Ghaiath Hussein
124 slides•1.4K views
This is a series of presentations I gave in the Eastern Mediterranean Public Health Network (EMPHNET)'s Public Health Ethics (PHE) that was held in Amman in June 2014.
This presentation outlines the ethical issues in research, especially the international research in low-middle income countries
This document provides an overview of research ethics and scientific misconduct. It begins with the history of research ethics, covering developments from the 18th century through World War II and the Nuremberg Code. It then discusses key documents and guidelines that shape modern research ethics like the Declaration of Helsinki and Belmont Report. The document defines informed consent and its key components. It also covers conflicts of interest and provides examples of scientific misconduct like fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Overall, the document provides important context on the evolution of research ethics and outlines the key ethical principles and guidelines that researchers must follow.
Ethical considerations in molecular & biotechnology researchDr Ghaiath Hussein
110 slides•4.9K views
A lecture presented by Dr. Ghaiath Hussein in University of Khartoum for the students of the MSc programme in Genetics/Molecular Biology.
Session 1 (Introduction): Definition of ethics, bioethics and medical ethics.
What is an ethical issue?
International approaches to medical ethics
Islamic approaches to medical ethics
This document provides a historical overview of the development of research ethics guidelines and codes. It discusses key events that shaped the field, such as the Nuremberg Code established after World War II experiments and the Declaration of Helsinki. Major documents that outline ethical principles are also summarized, including the Belmont Report, which established the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. The document traces the evolution of international guidelines to protect human subjects in research.
This document provides a historical overview of the development of research ethics guidelines and codes. It discusses key events that shaped the field, such as the Nuremberg Code established after World War II experiments and the Declaration of Helsinki. It also outlines several international guidelines and regulations established over time to protect human subjects, including the Common Rule in the US and ICH guidelines requiring ethics review and informed consent. The document stresses that while guidelines are important, ethical conduct in research also requires vigilance and no place is immune from violations.
This document outlines the key ethical issues in conducting research. It begins by defining research and explaining where research fits within the knowledge management cycle. It then discusses what makes research ethical, outlining principles such as social or scientific value, scientific validity, fair subject selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, independent review, and informed consent.
The document goes on to discuss specific ethical issues in research, including benefit-harm analysis, vulnerability and the risk-vulnerability matrix, informed consent, fairness and equity, privacy and confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and ethical issues after research is conducted. It provides examples of vulnerable populations like women, pregnant women, and children.
The document provides an overview of research ethics and guidelines for master's and doctoral students. It defines ethics and research, discusses the key differences between clinical and social science research. It also summarizes the international evolution of research ethics codes and regulations, including the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, Belmont Report, CIOMS Guidelines, and ICH Guidelines. The document outlines ethical principles of respect, beneficence, and justice in research and considerations at different stages of the research process.
نظرية التطور عند المسلمين (بروفيسور محمد علي البار
ويقدم فيها سردا تاريخيا لنظريات نشأة الخلق وخلق آدم وكيف ان نظرية التطور هي نظرية علمية وليس دينية لكن تم استغلالها لمحاربة الكنيسة
Ethical considerations in research during armed conflicts.pptxDr Ghaiath Hussein
4 slides•168 views
My talk @AUBMC Salim El-Hoss Bioethics Webinar Series. In this webinar, we have discussed the following points:
1- How armed conflicts affect the planning and conduct of research?
2- What is ethically unique about research during armed conflicts?
3- How did my doctoral project approach these ethical issues both at the normative and the empirical levels?
4- What are the lessons learned from the conflicts in the middle east (Sudan, Syria, Yemen, etc.) and how do they differ from the situation in Ukraine?
Acknowledgement: This talk is based on my doctoral thesis (http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/8580/), which was fully funded by Wellcome Trust, UK.
Medically Assisted Dying in (MAiD) Ireland - Mapping the Ethical Terrain (May...Dr Ghaiath Hussein
12 slides•88 views
This document outlines a presentation on mapping the ethical terrain of medically assisted dying (MAiD) in Ireland. It does not take a stance but provides a framework to guide conceptual discussion. It focuses on the decision, decision makers, and outcomes using Canada as an example country that has legalized MAiD. Key ethical questions are raised about patients' autonomy and consent, physicians' conflicting duties, and impacts on public perception and resource allocation. Data from Canada on MAiD providers and annual reported deaths is presented. The conclusion emphasizes the need for evidence from all stakeholders and learning from other jurisdictions' experiences before a decision is made.
Medically assisted dying in (MAiD) Ireland - mapping the ethical terrainDr Ghaiath Hussein
10 slides•229 views
This document provides an outline for a presentation on medically assisted dying (MAiD) in Ireland. It aims to establish an ethical framework for conceptual discussion of MAiD by considering: the decision, the decision makers, and the outcome. It does not endorse any viewpoint. The presentation raises several ethical questions around patient autonomy and consent, concepts of life and death, the role of healthcare providers, and impacts on community and public trust. Examples are provided from Canada, where MAiD is legal, to illustrate challenges in practice. The document stresses the need for evidence from all stakeholders and learning from other jurisdictions' experiences before legalizing MAiD in Ireland.
Dr. Ahmed Elzainy
Mastering Mobility- Joints of Lower Limb -Dr. Ahmed Elzainy Associate Professor of Anatomy and Embryology - American Fellowship in Medical Education (FAIMER), Philadelphia, USA
Progress Test Coordinator
Strategies for Promoting Innovation in Healthcare Like Akiva Greenfield.pdfakivagreenfieldus
6 slides•22 views
Healthcare innovation has been greatly aided by leaders like Akiva Greenfield, CEO of Nexus, particularly in fields like operational efficiency, revenue cycle management (RCM), and client engagement. In order to ensure both operational success and better patient experiences, Akiva's approach combines technological advancements with an emphasis on improving the human side of healthcare.
Crisis Management in Pharmacovigilance: Protecting Public Health & Industry R...Dr Aman Suresh Tharayil
21 slides•61 views
Effective crisis management in Pharmacovigilance (PV) is essential to mitigate risks, ensure public safety, and maintain industry trust. This presentation explores the pre-crisis, crisis response, and post-crisis phases, aligning with best practices in drug safety and regulatory compliance.
Distribution of Drugs – Plasma Protein Binding and Blood-Brain BarrierSumeetSharma591398
18 slides•19 views
This presentation provides a detailed overview of drug distribution, focusing on plasma protein binding and the blood-brain barrier (BBB). It explains the factors affecting drug distribution, the role of plasma proteins in drug binding, and how drugs penetrate the BBB. Key topics include the significance of protein-bound vs. free drug concentration, drug interactions, and strategies to enhance drug permeability across the BBB. Ideal for students, researchers, and healthcare professionals in pharmacology and drug development.
Distribution of Drugs – Plasma Protein Binding and Blood-Brain BarrierSumeetSharma591398
18 slides•19 views
Research ethics & scientific misconduct
1. RESEARCH ETHICS &
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
(FMOH, MARCH 04, 2015)
Ghaiath Hussein, MBBS, MHSc. (Bioethics),
Doctoral Researcher (UK)
ghaiathme@gmail.com
2. Outline
• Overview on the Knowledge Management Cycle
and how research fits in it
• Brief historical background on research ethics
• What makes research ethical?
• Definition and examples of scientific misconduct
• How to make your research ethical and avoid
scientific misconduct?
3. Where are we in R&D?
Source: http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=165
4. Where are we in R&D?
Expenditure on R&D as % of
GDP (2013):[1]
• Arab world: 0.5%
• China (2%),
• EU (2.3%),
• USA (2.8%),
• Israel (4%)
Number of researchers (per
1,000,000 population) [2]
• Morocco : 864
• Argentina: 1,236
• Malaysia: 1,643
• Slovenia: 4,255
• Israel: 6,494
Published scientific papers (1996 -2013):[3]
Egypt (42nd): 104,784 Brazil: 529,841
Israel: 247,561 India: 868,719
Turkey: 348,836 USA: 7,846,972
5. What is Research?
“Research” is defined as an undertaking intended to
extend knowledge through a disciplined inquiry or
systematic investigation.
Systematic methodological scientific approach for
basic facts around a certain problem in order to find
solutions based on these facts.
Research on Humans:
The systematic undertaking of activities that involve the
collection of human personal data, measurements,
and/or biological samples for purposes that are not
related to clinical management of a health condition
7. Better Research is Better Health
“Good” research: Good Science & Good
Ethics
“Good” Evidence: near-top to hierarchy
of Evidence
Evidence-Based Healthcare:
Better practice that is based on best evidence
Better health status
8. What Makes Good Research?
Good
Science
Good
Ethics
•Problem selection
•SMART objectives
•Proper methodology
•Proper analysis
•Fair subject selection
•Favorable Risk-Benefit Ratio
•Independent Review
•Informed Consent
9. Criteria of “Good” Science Research
• Systematic: The research developed,
implemented and reported in a systematic
manner.
• Methodological: Adopt & use skillfully the
research methods, materials, approaches in order
to ensure reliability of the results & findings.
• Scientific: The research should be scientifically
sound through utilizing scientific approaches,
tools and techniques.
10. Criteria for Good Ethics:
What Makes Research Ethical?
1. Social or Scientific Value
2. Scientific Validity
3. Fair Subject Selection
4. Favorable Risk-Benefit Ratio
5. Independent Review
6. Informed Consent
7. Respect for the potential and enrolled
subjects
11. What’s Research Ethics?
It is the field of ethics that systematically analyze the ethical
(and legal?) questions raised by research involving human
subjects.
Its main focus is to ensure that the study participants are
protected and, ultimately,
that clinical research is conducted in a way that
serves the needs of such participants and of
society as a whole.
It works when and only when it is applied before the
research is conducted
13. History of Research Ethics
Pre-World War II: Research standards left up to the discretion
of the individual researcher
18th and 19th Centuries
• James Lind “scurvy study in sailors - Salisbury
• Edward Jenner cowpox vaccine test
• 1897 Giuseppe Sanarelli yellow fever test
1900 Walter Reed established several [first ever]
“safeguards”
• Self-experimentation
• Only adults would be enrolled in research
• Written informed consent
• Reimbursement (inducement)
14. World War II: Nazi Doctors’Experimentation
Experiments conducted on inmates of Nazi concentration camps
1945-1949:Trials in Nuremberg, Germany– physicians convicted of crimes against
humanity
15. More than 400 African-
American men with latent
syphilis were followed for the
natural course of the disease
rather than receiving treatment.
Continued after penicillin
available
40 wives infected, 19 children
born with congenital syphilis
TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS STUDY,
ALABAMA ( 1932 – 1972 )
16. The Belmont Report (1979)
1972: the public became aware of the Tuskegee study
1974: the National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research was
established.
1978: the commission submitted its report titled, The
Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Research.
Those principles respect for persons, beneficence and
justice are accepted as the 3 fundamental principles for the
ethical conduct of research involving human participants.
17. Year Benchmark
2013 WMA updates DOH (Brazil)
2010 TCPS updated
2008 WMA updates DOH (Seoul)
2004 WMA updates DOH (Tokyo)
2002 WMA updates DOH (Washington) CIOMS Guidelines updated
2000 WMA updates DOH (Edinburgh)
1998 Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS)published in Canada
1996 WMA updates DOH (South Africa)
1993 CIOMS guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects
1991 US CFR title 45, Part 46 issued CIOMS Guidelines for Epidemiological studies
1989 WMA updates DOH (Hong Kong)
1983 WMA updates DOH (Venice)
1981 US Common rule updated
1979 The Belmont Report
1975 WMA updates DOH (Tokyo)
1966 Dr. Beecher’s Article “Ethics and Clinical Research”
1964 World Medical Association (WMA) published the Declaration of Helsinki (DOH)
1947 The Nuremberg Code
1900 Walter Reed’s ‘consent’ for yellow fever experiments
Pre-1900 Edward Jenner smallpox vaccines
18. Is it over?... Torvan trial in Kano,
Nigeria
Kano Trovan clinical trials in 1996, on pediatric age
group, during the worst ever meningococcal
meningitis.
Lack of proper Governmental authorization and
informed consent during the studies publicized in
2000, by Washington Post.
Court trial and release of investigation panel reports
stalled in Nigeria.
Suit for 5.8 billion USD moved to the USA and report
leaked there too.
Settlement out of court being discussed.
20. Examples of the ethical issues in
research
• Benefit/harm analysis
• Vulnerability (Risk-Vulnerability Matrix)
• Informed Consent
• Fairness and equity in research
participation
• Privacy and confidentiality
• Conflict of Interests (COI)
• Integrity & publication ethics
21. Core ethical principles/issues in research
(Source:WHOTrainingmanual:Ethicsinresearch,surveillanceandpatientcareinepidemics,emergenciesanddisasters,WHO(2014))
Ethical
principle/issue
Definition1 Examples of
guidelines
Respect for
people’s
autonomy
The duty to respect people’s ability to make decisions on issues
related to their health and their body, if they are competent to
make such decisions; and the duty to protect individuals with
impaired or diminished autonomy
CIOMS, General
principles
TCPS, article 1.1
Belmont Report
Informed
consent
A process whereby potential research participants decide
whether they want to participate in the proposed study after
receiving information about it. The requirements for consent
considered to be valid vary by guideline and regulation. In
general, they agree that decisions must be made free from
coercion, by a competent person who can understand the
information given and appreciate the associated risks. The
information given to the participant should be in a language and
format suitable to the participant’s ability to comprehend it.
CIOMS
(guidelines 4–6),
DOH (articles
25–32), TCPS
(Chapter 3)
22. Ethical
principle/issue
Definition1 Examples of
guidelines
Beneficence The moral duty to pursue actions that promote the
well-being of others and the ethical obligation to
maximize benefit and to minimize harm
CIOMS, Belmont
Report,
Non-
maleficence
The moral duty not to cause harm to others
through interventions
CIOMS,
DOH (articles 16–18)
Justice Primarily distributive justice, which requires
equitable distribution of benefits and burdens, i.e.
distribution such that no segment of the
population is unduly burdened by the harms of
research or denied the benefits of the knowledge
generated from it
CIOMS (guidelines 10
and 12)
DOH (articles 16–18)
TCPS (article 1.1 and
Chapter 4)
Core ethical principles/issues in research
(Source:WHOTrainingmanual:Ethicsinresearch,surveillanceandpatientcareinepidemics,emergenciesanddisasters,WHO(2014))
23. Ethical
principle/issue
Definition1 Examples of
guidelines
Vulnerability A status in which some people may struggle to protect
their interests or be at greater risk of being exploited.
This situation is usually linked to specific physical,
financial, educational or social circumstances.
Groups considered as vulnerable vary by guideline, but
children, mentally retarded and handicapped people,
prisoners, refugees, terminally ill patients and women
are often cited as the prime vulnerable groups.
CIOMS ( guidelines 13–
16), DOH (articles 19 &
20)
Common rule, subparts
B, C and D
TCPS (Chapter 9)
Privacy The right or expectation not to be interfered with or to
be free from surveillance or, more generally, a moral
right to be left alone. In practical terms, privacy is for
instance concerned with the setting in which a person’s
health-related information is acquired.
TCPS (Chapter 5), DOH
(article 24)
Core ethical principles/issues in research
(Source:WHOTrainingmanual:Ethicsinresearch,surveillanceandpatientcareinepidemics,emergenciesanddisasters,WHO(2014))
24. Ethical
principle/issue
Definition1 Examples of
guidelines
Confidentiality The principle that ensures that identifiable
information is kept out of reach of others.
All identifiable information about individuals,
whether recorded (written, computerized,
visual, audio) or simply held in the memory of
health professionals, is subject to the duty of
confidentiality.
CIOMS (Guideline 18),
TCPS (Chapter 5)
Research ethics
review
A process by which a group of experts in
research, ethics and other disciplines decides
whether a research protocol fulfils the ethical
standards of research before being undertaken
CIOMS, Guidelines 2
and 20; Common Rule,
subpart A, (articles
46.107, 46.108 and
46.109); DOH (article
23); TCPS (Chapter 6)
Core ethical principles/issues in research
(Source:WHOTrainingmanual:Ethicsinresearch,surveillanceandpatientcareinepidemics,emergenciesanddisasters,WHO(2014))
26. Research Misconduct (FFP)
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or
in reporting research results.
• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or
reporting them.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment,
or processes, or changing or omitting data or results.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas,
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
• Research misconduct does not include honest error or
differences of opinion.
• Research misconduct includes the destruction of, absence of,
or accused person's failure to provide research records
accurately documenting the questioned research.
27. Forms of misconduct
• Falsification
• Obfuscation
• Fabrication
• Plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Ghost writing
• Bare assertions
• Improper authorship
• Misappropriation
• Bibliometric inflation
• Violation of ethical
standards regarding
human and animal
experiments
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
28. How to maintain research ethics
and avoid scientific misconduct?
Before conduct
of research
• Develop clear
research plan
(who will do what
when and how)
• Submit protocol
to ethical review
• Prepare
(communicate)
well with your
research
community
• Agree on
authorship
During conduct
of research
• Follow the
approved
protocol
• Gain consent
• Involve the
community
• Protect yourself,
your team, &
your participants
• Regularly check
your data
After research
• Share your study
report(s) with
• Return
‘something’ back
to the researched
community
• Publish following
publication ethics
• Use Reference
Management
Software
29. References
1. World Bank’s interactive website:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS
2. World Bank website:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6?ord
er=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value&sort=desc
3. SCImago. (2007). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country
Rank. Retrieved December 09, 2014, from
http://www.scimagojr.com
4. Training manual: Ethics in research, surveillance and
patient care in epidemics, emergencies and disasters.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014.
30. This presentation and more material can be found online:
http://www.slideshare.net/ghaiath
https://www.youtube.com/ghaiathme
• You may also contact me on my email: ghaiathme@gmail.com
Editor's Notes
#17: In 1972, the public became aware of the Tuskegee study, which took place in the southern United States from 1932 to 1972. More than 400 men with latent syphilis were followed for the natural course of the disease rather than receiving treatment.
As a result, in 1974 the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research was established. In 1978, the commission submitted its report titled, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Those principles—respect for persons, beneficence and justice—are accepted as the 3 fundamental principles for the ethical conduct of research involving human participants.
#22: 1 These definitions are not universal. The author tried to capture the main, or the common, features of each concept. Different guidelines may have different definitions for each of these principles. Moreover, the literature on research ethics has different approaches and definitions. One comprehensive, simple-to-use resource that provides more information on these concepts is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Zalta, 2014).
2 This example is not common to all guidelines, and some commentators may disagree with it.
#23: 2 This example is not common to all guidelines, and some commentators may disagree with it.
#24: 1 These definitions are not universal. The author tried to capture the main, or the common, features of each concept. Different guidelines may have different definitions for each of these principles. Moreover, the literature on research ethics has different approaches and definitions. One comprehensive, simple-to-use resource that provides more information on these concepts is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Zalta, 2014).
2 This example is not common to all guidelines, and some commentators may disagree with it.
#25: 1 These definitions are not universal. The author tried to capture the main, or the common, features of each concept. Different guidelines may have different definitions for each of these principles. Moreover, the literature on research ethics has different approaches and definitions. One comprehensive, simple-to-use resource that provides more information on these concepts is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Zalta, 2014).
2 This example is not common to all guidelines, and some commentators may disagree with it.