Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2003; 24(4): 323-338
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-815585
Copyright © 2003 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Research Ethics 101: The Responsible Conduct of Research

Janis Costello Ingham
  • Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 January 2004 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The ethical, responsible conduct of research (RCR) is fundamental to the quality of science in our discipline, and ultimately to the advancement of knowledge. Therefore, appreciation of the basic concepts of RCR is vital to all segments of the discipline, from students to clinicians to scientists themselves. Conversely, fraud in science, or research misconduct, is diametrically opposed to the quality of science and the advancement of knowledge. This article overviews the major concepts associated with RCR as well as the kinds of behaviors that would be identified as research misconduct. Case study examples are provided for contemplation and discussion.

KEYWORDS

Responsible conduct of research - research ethics - research misconduct - scientific fraud

REFERENCES

  • 1 Teich A H, Frankel M S. Good Science and Responsible Scientists.  Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Sheets M D. Office of Research Integrity: a reflection of disputes and misunderstandings.  Croatian Med J . 1999;  40 321-325
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Resnik D B. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. London: Routledge; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Munck A U. Examples of scientific misconduct. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 31-33
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Woolf P K. Pressure to publish and fraud in science. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 141-145
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Racker E. A view of misconduct in science. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 34-42
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Darley F L, Aronson A E, Brown J R. Clusters of deviant speech dimensions in the dysarthrias.  J Speech Hear Res . 1969;  12 246-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bishop D VM, Carlyon R P, Deeks J M, Bishop S J. Auditory temporal processing impairment: neither necessary nor sufficient for causing language impairment in children.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1999;  42 1295-1310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ingham R J, Kilgo M, Ingham J C, Moglia R, Belknap H, Sanchez T. Evaluation of a stuttering treatment based on reduction of short phonation intervals.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 2001;  44 1229-1244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sackett D L, Straus S E, Richardson W S, Rosenberg W, Hayes R B. Evidence-Based Medicine. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingston 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Ingham J C. Evidence-based treatment and stuttering. Presentation at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention, Atlanta, GA, November 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Office of Research Integrity (ORI). PHS policy on instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Available at: http://ori.dhhs. gov/
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Kalichman M W. The online resource for instruction in the responsible conduct of research.  Available at: http://rcr.ucsd.edu. Accessed February 23 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Responsibility of PHS awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science. Federal Register 54 (August 8), 32449, codified as 42 CFR Part 50 Subpart A (1989a).
  • 15 Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Federal definition not effective yet.  Available at: http://ori.dhhs. gov/html/news/fedreg76260.asp. Accessed December 6 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Jones S M. Integrity in research.  Semin Hear . 2000;  21 87-96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dartmouth College, Committee on Sources, sources: their use and acknowledgment 1998. Available at: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sources/. Accessed September 7. 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Bailar III J C. Science, statistics, and deception. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 113-116
    Google Scholar
  • 19 The Nuremberg Code. JAMA 1996 276: 1691
    Google Scholar
  • 20 World Medical Association The Helsinki Declaration: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000. Available at: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/17-c_e. html . 
    Google Scholar
  • 21 National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report.  Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS (1991). Protection of human subjects. Federal Register 56 (June 18), 28003; Federal Register 40 (August 8, 1975), 33528; Federal Register 43 (January 11, 1978), 1758; Federal Register 43 (November 3, 1978), 51559; Federal Register 43 (November 16, 1978) 53655; Federal Register 48 (March 8, 1983) 9818; Federal Register 56 (June 18), 28032; codified as 45 CFR Part 46 Subparts A, B, C, D. Available at: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs. gov/polasur.htm . 
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Emanuel E J, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical?.  JAMA . 2000;  283 2701-2711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Stern J E, Lomax K. Human experimentation. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 286-306
    Google Scholar
  • 25 J Speech Lang Hear Res Information for authors. 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Werhane P, Doering J. Conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 165-192
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Weil V, Arzbaecher R. Relationships in laboratories and research communities. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 69-92
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Krulwich T A, Friedman P J. Integrity in the education of researchers.  Acad Med . 1993;  68(suppl) S14-S19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ringel R L. A case for the doctoral consortia model in communication sciences and disorders: less is better and may even lead to more. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders, April 2003, Albuquerque, NM.
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Berger E, Gert B. Institutional responsibility. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 197-212
    Google Scholar
  • 31 McCutchen C W. Peer review: Treacherous servant, disastrous master. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 151-160
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Updated November 26, 2001. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/ html/misconduct/whistleblowers.asp. Accessed ???
  • 33 Wenger N S, Korenman S G, Berk R, Berry S. The ethics of scientific research: an analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives.  J Invest Med . 1997;  45 371-380.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Time Magazine 2002 Persons of the Year December 22, 2002 . 
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Kalichman M W, Friedman P J. A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics.  Acad Med . 1992;  67 769-775
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Eastwood S, Derish P, Leash E, Ordway S. Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey.  Sci Eng Ethics . 1996;  2 89-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Brown S, Kalichman M W. Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: a survey of graduate students in experimental sciences.  Sci Eng Ethics . 1998;  4 487-498
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Amato I, Rustum R oy. PR is a better system than peer review. In: Elliott D, Stearn JE, eds. Research Ethics: A Reader Hanover, NH: University Press of New England 1997: 148-150
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Motluk A. Cutting out stuttering.  New Scientist . 1997;  153 32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Updated October, 2001 Available at: http://www.icmje.org/
  • 41 Bailey B J. What is an author?.  Laryngoscope . 2001;  110 1787-1788
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Pfeffer C, Olsen B R. Editorial.  J Neg Results Biomed . 2002;  1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Ingham R J, Fox P T, Ingham J C. et al . Functional-lesion investigation of developmental stuttering with positron emission tomography.  J Speech Hear Res . 1996;  39 1208-1227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Code of Ethics (revised). ASHA supplement 23. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2003. Available at: http://www.professional.asha.org/resources/deskrefs/. Accessed ??? . 
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Tudor M. An experimental study of the effect of evaluative labeling on speech fluency. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Iowa, 1939
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Dryer J. Theory improved treatment and understanding of stuttering. The San Jose Mercury News, June 11, 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Ambrose N G, Yairi E. The Tudor Study: Data and ethics.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol . 2002;  11 190-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Reynolds G. The stuttering doctor's “Monster Study.” New York Magazine 2003;March 16:36- 39, 83, 87, 90. 
    Google Scholar