|
R E S E A R C H
E T H I C S:
Issues, requirements and behaviors. The Continuing Education C O U R S E
| Course Number |
LWE860 |
| Objectives |
At the end of this course, you will
be equipped to make basic
ethical decisions
and apply basic terms relating to the ethical conduct of research
including research misconduct, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism,
compliance, ethically prohibited behavior, ethically required behavior,
ethically permitted behavior, and ethically encouraged behavior.
|
| Credit Hours and Fee |
3.0 CE Credit Hours with a fee of $24.00 |
| Instructor |
Rudolf Klimes, PhD (Indiana University), MPH
(Johns Hopkins University);
Adjunct Professor at Folsom Lake College, Folsom CA. |
Welcome
to this
3-contact-hour Continuing Education course with instant online processing and
certification 24/7. Study the course below, take the 12-question
multiple-choice test,
register and pay $24 online. If you score 75% or above, you may print your CE
certificate on your printer as soon as you finish.
If you have
difficulty printing your certificate,
click here.
You may retake the test once.
See the end of this page for sources and
credits.
Introduction
Course Philosophy | Course
Sections |
A Brief History of the Development of Research
Ethics |
Footnotes | Additional
Resources
This course is intended to provide a foundation for institutions
that are working to promote Responsible Conduct of Research. Our
hope is that web-based instruction like this will expose
investigators and graduate students to the kinds of ethical issues
and federal requirements they encounter throughout their careers and
prepare them to deal with those issues and requirements.
The six sections provide information on major issues and contain
at least one case study that allow exploration of different options,
as well as an assessment tool so you can test your knowledge of the
area. Here we present only two of these sections. But all sections
are linked at the end our this course and are available for further
study.
Course
Philosophy
Federal funding agencies and research institutions are
increasingly pro-active in insuring that researchers and graduate
students in research disciplines learn about the ethics related to
their work. In December 2000, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
issued the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Instruction in the
Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). If the policy had been
approved, ORI would require research institutions that are
recipients of PHS funds to develop and require training in ethics
for all research staff "who have direct and substantive involvement
in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research, or who
receive research training, supported by PHS funds or who otherwise
work on the PHS-supported research project even if the individual
does not receive PHS support."/1 PHS research funding is
provided by the Administration for Children and Families, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Indian Health Service, and
National Institutes of Health.
The PHS policy requiring RCR training was suspended in February
2000, "pending review of its substance and whether the document
should have been issued as a regulation rather than a policy," and,
in more than three years has not been instituted. Nevertheless, ORI
has continued to develop resources and to fund development to assist
in educational planning for research institutions that are creating
materials and processes for RCR.
In December 2000, the Office of Science and Technology Policy
offered new definitions and procedures to standardize responses by
federal funding agencies to allegations of research misconduct. The
new definitions and procedures were meant to apply to all federal
departments and agencies. That proposal defines misconduct as
"fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing,
or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." Under this
proposal, research institutions would be responsible for the
protection of those who make an accusation of misconduct and
protection of those accused. Research institutions would also be
required to separate investigations of misconduct into four
different phases: inquiry, investigation, adjudication, and appeal.
As of early 2002, this proposal has still not been fully
implemented, but federal agencies were seeking, individually, to
adopt the standard definitions and procedures. For example, on
January 25, 2002, The National Science Foundation (NSF) placed a
notice in the Federal Register of its intention to revise its
misconduct regulations to conform with the new federal policy./3
As will be explained more fully in the section on animals in
research, there is an on-going battle at the federal level over
whether birds, mice, and rats should be protected under the Federal
Animal Welfare Act.
There are also some areas of agreement among federal agencies
regarding research ethics. All researchers who use human
participants in their research are required to have training on the
topic, and research institutions must have committees to oversee the
use of animals and human participation in research and documentation
to show that the oversight is accomplished.
It is in this context that research institutions are working to
develop research ethics education for investigators, students and
lab personnel. This asynchronous online course provides such
education. In anticipation of expected federal requirements, this
online course covers the topics listed by PHS as core curriculum:
1). Data acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership;
2). Mentor/trainee responsibilities;
3). Publication practices and responsible authorship;
4). Peer review;
5). Collaborative science;
6). Human subjects;
7). Research involving animals;
8). Research misconduct; and
9). Conflict of interest and commitment./4
In addition, the course uses the partially implemented standardized
federal definitions and procedures.
This course also encourages investigators, and requires students
enrolled in the course for credit, to think critically about what it
means to be an ethical researcher. One may be in compliance, without
being an ethical researcher. Being in compliance means following the
rules; ethical research requires an understanding of the ethical
imperatives behind the rules. The fundamental ethical imperative
behind the rules is that researchers seek to do their jobs in a
manner that will not cause unjustified harm to anyone. But, most
researchers work toward acting in an ethically ideal way -- through
their work and professional conduct, they seek to prevent harm and
to promote the good. Throughout the course, investigators and
students will be asked to think about the range of actions that
count as responsible conduct for the ethical researcher as well as
identifying the rules that researchers are expected to follow.
Some of the content for this course comes from work sponsored by
NSF/5 and the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education (FIPSE)/6, conducted at Dartmouth College and the
University of Montana from 1992-1995. Those projects resulted in
three publications, Stern, Judy E. and Elliott, Deni, The Ethics
of Scientific Research: A Guidebook for Course Development and
Elliott, Deni and Stern, Judy E. (eds), Research Ethics: A Reader
and a special issue of Professional Ethics Journal, Volume 4,
Numbers 3 & 4. Both books were published by the University Press
of New England in 1997 and material from both books is incorporated
into this course. Copies of the journal may be ordered from
Professional Ethics Journal at the Center for Applied Philosophy,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. This course was also
enriched through a conversation the course authors had with
Dartmouth, NSF and FIPSE in December 2000 and by the pilot testing
of sections by colleagues around the country in March, 2002.
Course
Sections
This course is divided into six sections that cover the major
topics in research ethics. Each section includes an introduction
that identifies learning goals, major issues for discussion, at
least one case study, external links, and an examination on the
concepts covered. The case studies are intended to be explored
through an investigation of all the offered choices. Each of the six
sections may be examined independently. Each section, not counting
explorations into external links, will take between 30 and 45
minutes to complete.
I. Ethical Issues in Research: A Framework
A. Compliance and Ethics
B. Compliance Concepts
C. Ethics Concepts
II. Interpersonal Responsibility
A. Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities
B. Determining Publication Practices and Responsible
Authorship
C. Collaborative Science/Competitive Science
III. Institutional Responsibility
A. The Institutional Process Regarding Allegations
B. Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment
C. IRB/IACUC
IV. Professional Responsibility
A. Proposing Research
B. Dissemination of Findings
C. Peer Review
V. Animals in Research
VI. Human Participation in Research
A Brief
History of the Development of Research Ethics
Questions relating to the ethical practice of research have been
around as long as research itself. However, until the late 20th
Century, it was assumed that scientists were naturally conducting
their research in a responsible way or that the profession could
identify and weed out the few bad actors. One of the hallmarks of
research in the hard sciences and social science is trust in its
"self-correcting" nature.
Instances of intentional fraud were thought to be few. It was
erroneously believed that well-intentioned researchers did not need
clear statements of expectations or conventional norms. It was
assumed that novice researchers learned the conventions and
expectations of high quality research in the labs of their equally
well-intentioned mentors. The individual nature of the instruction
meant that what were perceived as "norms" were more often the
individual mentor's own perspectives. "The absence of norms... was
symptomatic of the neglect of research ethics in the decades leading
to the 1980s," according to Caroline Whitbeck in her introduction to
a collection of papers on Trustworthy Research./7 "During
this period, hardly any universities or other research institutions
established policies for investigating charges of wrongdoing."
The U.S. federal government, with its responsibility for
overseeing the use of public funds, became actively involved in
identifying and describing less-than-adequate research practices in
the 1980s. Between 1980 and 1985, the federal focus and language
changed from "research fraud" to "research misconduct." In
Congressional subcommittee hearings in 1981 on biomedical fraud, led
by Albert Gore, Jr., it became clear that the misdeeds being
discussed were broader than what was previously thought to count as
fraud. Through the work of this committee and subsequent work, the
definition of misconduct evolved to include intentional acts of
fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP).
The inclusion of what has been referred to as FFP is generally
not controversial, but FFP is not inclusive of all that can go wrong
in research. Along with FFP, there are "other practices that
seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the
scientific community for proposing, conducting or reporting
research." Deviations from commonly accepted practices were thought
by some to include behavior specific to the substance of the
research, such as failing to report results that contradict one's
hypothesis, and thought by others to include a wide range of
unconventional behaviors on the part of the researcher, including
sexual harassment or drug abuse.
Due to uncertainty as to what should count in the category of
"practices that seriously deviate," that language was dropped out of
the federal requirements proposed in December 2000. However, this
category of problematic practices (in addition to FFP) has remained
an important area for teaching responsible conduct of research.
Responsible conduct of research includes avoidance of practices that
seriously deviate from commonly accepted procedures as well as
refraining from intentional fabrication, falsification, and
plagiarism.
Since the 1980s, professional societies and federal agencies
moved to describe research norms and to look for ways to educate
young scientists. While not disputing the importance of informal
mentoring in the teaching of students, the National Academy of
Sciences explained that "[S]cience has become so complex and so
closely intertwined with society's needs that a more formal
introduction to research ethics and the responsibilities that these
commitments imply is also needed - an introduction that can
supplement the informal lessons provided by research supervisors and
mentors." The Academy, in 1989, produced the first edition of "On
Being A Scientist," to describe, for beginning scientists, the
ethical foundations of scientific practice. More than 200,000 copies
were distributed to graduate and undergraduate students./8
By the end of the 1980s, the Institute of Medicine recommended
that students be provided formal instruction in research practice
and PHS moved to make institutions of higher education more
accountable for the conduct of their researchers. The 1989
misconduct regulations from the Public Health Service (PHS) (which
includes some federal funding agencies) stated "Institutions should
foster a research environment that discourages misconduct in all
research and that deals forthrightly with possible misconduct
associated with research for which PHS funds have been provided or
requested."/9
Beginning in the mid 1980s the US Department of Education, the
National Science Foundation (NSF), as well as the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) began providing resources to encourage
study and curricular development in research ethics itself. Among
the important results of those efforts are the development of
courses in research ethics that range from high school through
senior investigator levels,/10 development of guidelines for
practice,/11 study of the pressures that work against ethical
research,/12 and the creation of an Online Ethics Center for
Engineering and Science./13
The question remains about whether increased federal attention on
standardizing definitions, procedures and training will encourage or
inhibit the development of more ethical research behavior. Research
institutions are increasingly encouraged to create and maintain an
environment that supports the most ethical work. This supports the
likelihood that researchers will become increasingly clear on their
role-related responsibilities. However, the federal standards can
alternatively be seen as encouraging a very minimalistic approach to
ethics -- institutional attention to the development of minimal
compliance.
One is ethically responsible for far more than for what one can
be held legally accountable. This is true in general morality, just
as it is true in research. It is wrong to lie in many more instances
that the lies for which one can be prosecuted. In an analogous
fashion, it is important that institutions and investigators keep in
mind that requirements for compliance prescribe a minimal standard
for research practice. It is important to know how to be compliant,
just as it is important to know the laws for which one can be held
accountable by society. But it is equally important that individuals
think about how to best meet their role-related responsibilities in
ways that go beyond mere compliance with rules and regulations.
Institutions should consider how best to encourage research that is
praiseworthy, rather than how to simply discourage research that is
blameworthy.
Footnotes
1/onlineethics.org/essays/research/cw1.html.
2/ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/rcr_requirements.asp.
3/Federal Register, pp. 76260-76264.
4/PHS Policy on Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of
Research, December 1, 2000;
www.ori.hhs.gov/html/programs/announcement.asp.
5/NSF #SBR 9496203.
6/FIPSE #P116 B960045.
7/http://researchethics.mc.duke.edu/clinethics2.nsf/webpages/courses.
8/www.monmouth.com/~bcornet/being_scientist.htm.
9/www.ori.hhs.gov/html/programs/announcement.asp.
10/researchethics.mc.duke.edu/clinethics2.nsf/webpages/courses.
11/www.internet-prospector.org/ethics.html.
12/www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/.
13/onlineethics.org/.
Return to the Top
Additional
Resources
Office of Research Integrity: RCR Instructional Resources
A comprehensive list of RCR resources "to assist institutions in
developing RCR programs and to facilitate the sharing of resources
among institutions."
The Ethics of Scientific Research A Guidebook for Course Development:
A 75-page PDF (Adobe Acrobat) book by Judy Stern and Deni Elliott.
Whether scientific ethics is approached through a single course or a
series of courses or seminars throughout the graduate curriculum, it
has become obvious that students need exposure to ethics in a number
of contexts. Research ethics can and must be taught in a formalized
manner. It is our belief that courses in research ethics that
incorporate a solid philosophical framework have the greatest
potential for long-term usefulness to students. While other
methodologies may reinforce this material, a course of the type
described in this monograph has the potential to help a student
develop the tools to see ethical problems from a new vantage point.
It is in this context and for these reasons that we designed our
course in research ethics.
Other Research Ethics Online Courses.
Resources For Instruction In Responsible Conduct Of Research:
Examples of programs and tools for instruction in the responsible
conduct of research. Maintained by Michael Kalichman, Ph.D.
Director, Research Ethics Program, University of California, San
Diego. The site also contains a link to
Online Resources For
RCR Instruction, "a comprehensive web site supported by ORI."
Ethical Issues in Research
Introduction | Major
Issues for Discussion | Case Study |
Footnotes |
Additional Resources | Section
Assessment and Certificate
Ethics matters in academic and scientific
research. The study of ethics is no less and no more
important in research than it is in any other practice that
has the potential of causing harm or creating good for
others. It is expected that practitioners will better
understand how to be responsible researchers through the
study of ethics. The study of ethics helps people think more
clearly about professional expectations and encourages them
to examine the assumptions that serve as the basis for
conventional behavior. The hope is that the researcher's
increased consciousness of his or her role will translate
into more ethical action.
Through completing this section, successful participants
will be able to:
1). Define and apply basic terms relating to the ethical
conduct of research including research misconduct,
fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, compliance,
ethically prohibited behavior, ethically required behavior,
ethically permitted behavior, and ethically encouraged
behavior;
2). Distinguish between compliance and ethics; and
3). Describe the minimal requirements for research ethics
training set forward by the Public Health Service (PHS).
Major
Issues for Discussion
The first step in learning how to use ethical concepts in
dealing with matters of research is to become familiar with
the terminology associated with research ethics.
This section is divided into two sub-sections:
1). Compliance and Ethics Terms, and
2). Public Health Service (PHS) Policy and Goals.
1) Compliance and Ethics Terms
The terms for this section are separated into compliance and
ethics. Compliance and ethics are both necessary for the
conduct of responsible research. Compliance means that
investigators and institutions follow the rules that are set
out for them. Rules regarding research come from the federal
government, from funders, and from the institution itself.
The essential elements of compliance are that an individual
researcher knows the rules and that he or she is motivated
to follow the rules.
Ethical behavior requires more than simply following the
rules. Ethics is the study of how human action affects other
humans, sentient beings, or the ecosystem. Ethical
researchers understand that their actions have the potential
of causing harm and the potential of promoting good for
others, for the profession, for society, and for the natural
world. They are aware of the special responsibilities that
follow from the researcher role and work to fulfill those
responsibilities. In the process of meeting their
responsibilities, they seek to promote good when possible.
Always, at a minimum, they choose actions that do not cause
unjustified harm.
Ethical analysis provides a way of making sense of the
rules and regulations. Fabrication, for example, is a type
of research misconduct. It is legally and ethically
prohibited. Fabrication is the act of making up data or
results, then recording or reporting them as part of the
research record. It is legally required for funding agencies
and research institutions to take punitive actions against
researchers who fabricate. They are held accountable for
their actions.
Fabrication is ethically wrong because it is likely to
lead to harm to others. The harm could be direct to a
patient who takes a drug that is erroneously reported as
having no serious side effects. The harm could be direct to
another researcher who trusts the results of fabricated
research and wastes valuable time, money and other resources
in using that research as a basis for his or her own work.
The harm is almost always indirect as well. Indirect harms
include the decrease in trust that the general public has in
research when they learn about cases of scientific
misconduct. This decrease in trust is harmful to the public,
who must depend on the accuracy of research.
Compliance Terms/1
Research: Includes all basic, applied, and
demonstration research in all fields of science,
engineering, and mathematics. This includes, but is not
limited to, research in economics, education, linguistics,
medicine, psychology, social sciences, statistics, and all
research involving human subjects or animals, regardless of
originating discipline. Research, according to the
Belmont Report, is an "activity designed to test a
hypothesis, permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to
develop or contribute to generalized knowledge (expressed,
for example, in theories, principles, and statements of
relationships). Research is usually described in a formal
protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of
procedures designed to reach that objective."/2
Research Misconduct: Fabrication, falsification,
or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing
research, or in reporting research results. It does not
include honest error or honest differences in
interpretations or judgments of data.
Fabrication: Making up data or results and
recording or reporting them as factual results.
Falsification: Manipulating research materials,
equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or
results such that the research is not accurately represented
in the research record.
Research Record: The record of data or results
that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry and
includes, but is not limited to, research proposals,
laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress
reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal
reports, and journal articles.
Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's
ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit, including those obtained through
confidential review of others' research proposals and
manuscripts.
Findings of Research Misconduct: A finding that
research misconduct, in fact, occurred requires that the
fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism be a significant
departure from accepted practices of the relevant research
community; and the misconduct be committed intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly; and the allegation be proven by a
preponderance of evidence.
Research Institutions: All organizations using
federal funds for research, including, for example, colleges
and universities, intramural federal research laboratories,
federally-funded research and development center, national
user facilities, industrial laboratories, or other research
institutes. Independent researchers and small research
institutions are also included in this definition. Research
institutions have the primary responsibility for prevention
and detection of research misconduct./3
Research Integrity Officer: Institutional official
responsible for assessing allegations of research
misconduct. The Research Integrity Officer at most
institutions, is the Vice President for Research, or that
person's designee.
Legally Required
This terminology is used in the course to differentiate
actions that are merely in compliance (legally required)
from those actions that are ethically permitted.
Ethics Terms/4
Ethical (syn. Moral): Within the realm of
considerations that looks at the potential harms caused to
other persons, sentient beings or systems./5
Moral Agent: Someone who is aware or who has the
capacity to be aware of the expectation that he or she not
cause unjustified harm to other persons, sentient beings or
systems.
General Morality: The questions relating to ethics
in research are a subset of the questions that relate to
general morality. General morality dictates that it is not
acceptable to cause pain, death, disability, or deprive
someone of freedom or pleasure without justification.
General morality also requires that acts of deception,
cheating, promise-breaking, law-breaking and neglect of
responsibility be considered examples of wrongdoing unless
there is justification for the acts.
Publicity: It is reasonable to expect individuals
to act ethically only if it possible for them to know what
those ethical expectations are and if following those
expectations will not cause them unjustified harm. The
expectations should be public. Exceptions that people want
to make for not doing what is usually expected should be
public as well.
Justification: Ethically acceptable exceptions to
doing what is usually expected have the following features:
1) if they are justified for any person, they are justified
for every person when all of the ethically relevant features
are the same (one cannot justifiably make an exception of
oneself if one is not willing to make the same exception for
everyone in the same situation); 2) the exception cannot
cause unjustified harm to oneself or others; and 3) the
exception can be known publicly.
Ethical Rules: Rules that identify ethically
questionable actions that are known to cause suffering or
cause an increased risk of causing harm. One set of rules is
that it is ethically prohibited to cause pain, death,
disability or deprive others of opportunity or pleasure
without justification. Another set of rules is that it is
also ethically prohibited to do any of the following without
good reason: deceive, cheat, break promises, break the law,
or neglect one's duty.
Ethical Ideals: Ideals are actions that lessen the
amount of harm suffered or decrease the risk that people,
other sentient beings, or the ecosystem will suffer harm. As
long as one is not violating an ethical rule, general
morality encourages, but does not require, following ethical
ideals. People are praiseworthy for following ethical
ideals, but are not blameworthy for not performing the
ideal.
Ethically Prohibited: Actions that are contrary to
those required by general morality or by reasonable
expectations within the research community and are not
justifiable. People are blameworthy for acting in ethically
prohibited ways. By way of example, it is ethically
prohibited to violate the rules and regulations regarding
responsible research that are set out by the federal
government, funders, and research institutions.
Ethically Permitted: Actions that are consistent
with those required by general morality and by reasonable
expectations within the research community. It is ethically
permitted to do more than follow minimal rules and
regulations.
Ethically Required: Actions that follow from the
special role-related responsibilities of being a researcher.
It is ethically required that researchers be in compliance
with federal and institutional rules and regulations.
Ethically Encouraged: Actions that are ethically
permitted and, in addition, are intended to lessen suffering
or lessen the risk of suffering harms.
Blameworthy: One who acts in ethically prohibited
ways.
Praiseworthy: One who acts in ethically encouraged
ways.
Descriptive Ethics: The study of how people do
act.
Normative Ethics: The study of how people
should act.
2) Public Health Service (PHS) Policy
The pending PHS policy requires that those who have direct
and substantial involvement in proposing, performing,
reviewing or reporting research or who receive research
training supported by PHS funds or who work on PHS-supported
research regardless of PHS support, complete a basic program
of instruction in the responsible conduct of research.
PHS has identified nine core instructional areas. These
are:
1). Data acquisition, management, sharing, and
ownership;
2). Mentor/trainee responsibilities;
3). Publication practices and responsible authorship;
4). Peer review;
5). Collaborative science;
6). Human participants;
7). Research involving animals;
8). Research misconduct; and
9). Conflict of interest and commitment.
Within a presentation of these core areas, information about
compliance with related PHS and institutional policies
should be included. PHS does not require that all research
staff have training in all areas. Institutions may use
discretion in determining educational needs.
However, most research institutions are committed to the
long-term goals identified by PHS for all researchers, not
just those covered by the PHS requirements. Those goals
include:
1). Increase knowledge of, and sensitivity to, issues
surrounding the responsible conduct of research;
2). Improve the ability of participants to make
ethical and legal choices in the face of conflicts
involving research;
3). Develop appreciation for the range of accepted
practices for conducting research;
4). Provide information about the regulations,
policies, statutes, and guidelines that govern the
conduct of PHS-funded research; and
5). Develop positive attitudes toward life-long
learning in matters involving the responsible conduct of
research./6
Thus, the institutional commitment is to create and maintain
an environment that encourages ethical research, rather than
research that is simply in compliance.
Case
Studies
Note: The case study will open in a new window.
When you have completed all of the alternatives for a case,
close the window to return to this section.
Case Study 1:
Expedience, Misrepresentation, or Falsification?
Case Study 2:
Crashing into Law.
Footnotes
1/Unless otherwise noted, definitions relating to
compliance are from "Research Misconduct Definitions and
Guidelines for Federal Research Agencies," December 6, 2000,
Federal Register, pages 76260-76264.
2/The
Belmont Report.
3/PHS
Policy on Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research
(RCR), December 1, 2000.
4/Unless otherwise noted, definitions relating to
ethics are from, or adapted from, Gert, Bernard, (1998).
Morality Its Nature and Justification. New York: Oxford
University Press.
5/Please note that the course authors have
expanded Gert's sphere of those worthy of moral
consideration from only living human beings. As is argued
elsewhere, the authors include sentient beings and systems
as subjects worthy of moral consideration.
6/PHS
Goals.
Additional Resources
Below are links that may help you understand ethics and
compliance issues a little better:
Ethics and Compliance Strategies: "When it comes to
developing effective ethics and compliance programs, the key
to success is knowing how to present content rich material
in an innovative manner. Whether it's developing a code of
conduct, writing policies or designing a training session,
you need to be creative, informative and cost effective. To
get the most out of your ethics and compliance program,
contact Ethics & Compliance Strategies. We know how to
design programs that will win high praise from the world's
most demanding audiences -- your employees."
Ethics Programs of the National Institutes of Health:
"This site deals with standards of ethical conduct for
federal employees."
Ethics
Resource Center: "The Ethics Resource Center (ERC) is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization whose vision
is a world where individuals and organizations act with
integrity."
Ethics in Science: This Web site contains many links to
science ethics resources.
Ethics Updates: "Ethics Updates is designed primarily to
be used by ethics instructors and their students. It is
intended to provide updates on current literature, both
popular and professional, that relates to ethics."
Guidelines for the Conduct of Research: "The Guidelines
for the Conduct of Research expound the general principles
governing the conduct of good science as practiced in the
Intramural Research Programs at the National Institutes of
Health. They address a need arising from the rapid growth of
scientific knowledge, the increasing complexity and pace of
research, and the influx of scientific trainees with diverse
backgrounds. Accordingly, the Guidelines should assist both
new and experienced investigators as they strive to
safeguard the integrity of the research process."
Office of
Research Integrity: "The Office of Research Integrity
(ORI) promotes integrity in biomedical and behavioral
research supported by the Public Health Service (PHS) at
about 4,000 institutions worldwide. ORI monitors
institutional investigations of research misconduct and
facilitates the responsible conduct of research through
educational, preventive, and regulatory activities.
Organizationally, ORI is located in the Office of Public
Health and Science within the Office of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services."
Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science: "Our
mission is to provide engineers, scientists, and science and
engineering students with resources for understanding and
addressing ethically significant problems that arise in
their work, and to serve those who are promoting learning
and advancing the understanding of responsible research and
practice in science and engineering."
NIH Bioethics Resources: "The Internet is replete with
resources available to those with an interest in bioethics
including education, research involving human participants
and animals, medical and health care ethics, and the
implications of applied genetics and biotechnology. This
website contains a broad collage of annotated web links, and
while this list is comprehensive, it is not totally
inclusive. The listed resources provide background
information and various positions on issues in bioethics."
NIH Office of Intramural Research: Links to training
guides and ethical procedures developed by the US
government.
Research Conduct and Ethics Instruction Materials: A
collection of research ethics guidelines with cases studies
from the NIH.
The US
Public Health Service: The main Web site for access to
the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease
Control, Food and Drug Administration, and other
health-related agencies.
US
Office of Government Ethics: "On this site you will be
able to access data about OGE and the services it provides.
We hope that this site will help you understand the
executive branch ethics program and our effort to reach
Federal employees and the general public."
|
Course Sections
Section One:
Section Two:
Section Three:
Section Four:
Section Five:
Section Six:
 |
Please Note: The course authors acknowledge that this
course content is built on the shoulders of great thinkers, both
classical and contemporary, and have striven to assign appropriate
credit for the ideas and words of others.
Source:
http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/montana_round1/research_ethics.html
Thanks to the the Practical Ethics Center at the
University of Montana with Office of Research Integrity (ORI) that
developed and supported the course during the 2002-03 academic year.
TEST:
http://www.nurseslearning.com/courses/make_test.cfm?courseKey=4146
Study this web-site for 3 hours for an
approved (RN-CEP 11430, MFT- PCE 39) 3-hours Continuing Education Certificate
(0.3 CEUs).
Click above link for test
& online payment, and 2) receive your
certificate immediately online. All is online, nothing by post-mail. |
