Research Ethics
Shunzo Majima, PhD
Reseach Fellow
Center for Applied Ethics and Philosophy
Graduate School of Letters
Hokkaido University (as of 2016)

Outline
1. Introduction
2. What is Research？
3. Ethics of Research, Ethics in Research
4. Research Ethics
5. Research Misconduct
6. Three Attitudes towards Research Ethics
7. Tests for Judgement of an Act in Question
8. Imaginary Case
9. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Purpose and Aim
Purpose: to understand what constitutes research ethics andmisconduct– Reason 1: to prevent unintended misconduct– Reason 2: to avoid suspicion of misconduct
Aim: to understand what research ethics and misconduct are
in order to judge which acts are impermissible; tounderstand and explain the reason(s) they constitutemisconduct; and to be equipped with the means andmethods to avoid misconductWhen conducting research…
• What does authorship mean?
• As an author, what sort of responsibility do you have to take?
• Is it permissible to publish the result if only one experimentsucceeded?
• If not, how many times should experiments be conducted?
• Should “salami” publications be acceptable?
These issues are matters of research ethics.

Study Goals
By the end of this lecture, you will be expected to beable to explain:
1) why we need to understand, learn and acquire
research ethics;2) which acts/behaviours constitute research
misconduct;3) what methods and means are available to prevent
misconduct.

2. What is Research?

What is Research?

What exactly does “research” mean?
Some concepts are similar to “research”, including:• “learning”• “study”.
How does research differ from these?

What is Research?
Learning: “gaining knowledge or skill by studying,from experience, from being taught, etc.”
Study (narrow sense): the activity of gaining
knowledge of facts that have already been
discovered.
Research: careful study of a subject in order todiscover new facts or information about it.

Functions of Higher Education Institutions
1. To provide opportunities for students to study andconduct research
2. To provide students with the knowledge and techniques
necessary for studying and conducting research
3. To provide opportunities for the faculty to research andteach
4. To provide the faculty with the knowledge and techniques
required for research and teaching3. Ethics of Research,
Ethics in ResearchEthics and Research
Ethics is concerned with human activities.
Human activities are an object of ethics.
Since research is a human activity, it is an object of
ethics.
Since ethics is an enquiry into the moral
goodness/rightness and badness/wrongness of an
human act, we can ask what sort of research ismorally good and right (or bad and wrong).

Rightness of Research
Is there morally right or morally wrong research? If so, what
are they?
1. Morally right research– Example: research into a vaccine against a deadly
infectious disease
This looks morally right. However,– if an international pharmaceutical corporation funded
research and monopolised the patents of the vaccine
and sold them at a very expensive price…?

Rightness of Research
2. Morally wrong research– For instance: research into a virus that can be used forbio-terrorism
What if such research had little difference from research into
the vaccine against the virus?
• Few examples of research per se can be consideredmorally right or wrong.
• Judgement may be context-dependent.

Rightness of Research
Another example: research with military characteristics.
– Is it wrong? Not necessarily.
There are cases of “dual use”.
– For example: research into a vaccine against the virusthat can be used for bio-terrorism
But there may be essentially wrong research.
– For instance: military research on “enhanced
interrogation” (i.e. interrogative torture) techniques toextract information effectively and efficiently

Rightness in Research Conduct
How should we conduct research?
– Is there rightness or wrongness in conducting
research? If so, what conduct do they include?
Rightness in research conduct means “right means andmethods in conducting research”:• quoting the literature in the correct manner;• collecting and using data by correct means andmethods.
Rightness in research conduct leads to reliability of theresearch.

Rightness in Research Conduct“Misconduct in research” means “wrong means and methods
in conducting research”:• fabricating and falsifying data;• plagiarising other people’s research.
Any research conducted by wrong means and methods cannot
serve to discover new facts.
In order to conduct research correctly and avoid misconduct,
we need research ethics.

Two Types of Research Ethics
Summary of this section:
1. There is a distinction in research ethics: ethics ofresearch and ethics in research.
2. Ethics of research aims to avoid morally wrong
research, such as research into interrogative torturetechniques.
3. Ethics in research aims to avoid wrong means andmethods of conducting research.

4. Research Ethics

Two Senses of Research Ethics
Research ethics means “a set of norms, rules and standards
that researchers must acquire and abide by”.
A narrow definition of research ethics would be “a set ofnorms, rules and standards for conducting research”,
including:• prohibition of fabricating and falsifying data;• prohibition of plagiarism;• protection of the rights of research subjects

Two Senses of Research Ethics
A broad definition of research ethics would be: “a setof norms, rules and standards adhered to as
members of the research profession” (academic
ethics). This includes:• authorship• peer review• funding• mentor-trainee relationshipResearch Ethics as Professional Ethics
If researchers are professionals, they must have theirown ethical norms and standards.
Why do professionals need to have their own specificethics?
Because professionals have responsibility to asignificant degree when engaged in the profession,
since they have great power and privileges that theyuse for their activities.

Research Ethics as Professional Ethics
Two distinctive characteristics of professionals:
1. Professionals provide vital and indispensable
services to society through their activities.
2. Laypeople have to trust and rely on professionals forthe service they provide.
We want all kinds of professionals to have a highstandard of ethics.

Researchers as Professionals of Research• Professionals are expected and required to acquireand follow a high standard of ethics.
• What do researchers provide to this society as
professionals?
• Researchers, the professionals of research, areexpected and required to realise the public value ofdevelopment of knowledge of humankind throughtheir activities (i.e. the pursuit of truth).

Research Ethics as Professional Ethics
Researchers are expected and required to achieve
their missions by following research ethics, which is:1) a special kind of professional ethics peculiar to
those members in the research profession (thebroad definition of research ethics);2) ethics necessary for researchers when engaged intheir activities (the narrow definition).

Functions of Research Ethics
1. To condemn cases in which researchers aredeliberately engaged in research misconduct.
2. To remind us of, prevent and avoid unintentional,
careless, mistaken or unintended but questionable
research practices.
3. To empower us to deal with complex and/or contextdependent situations in which an act in question is ina grey area or suspected to constitute misconduct.

5. Research Misconduct

Research Misconduct
Research misconduct means “breaches, violations
and infringements of norms, rules and standard
envisaged in research ethics, regardless of theintention of a researcher in question”.
Narrowly defined, misconduct includes:• fabrication• falsification• plagiarism

Research Misconduct
Broadly defined, misconduct includes:• failing to acknowledge the contribution of acollaborating researcher (without his or her consent);• misuse/abuse of grants for something irrelevant to
the purpose of the research;• nepotism and other kinds of discriminatory bias in
the peer-review process of a paper submitted for arefereed journal.

Causes of Research Misconduct
There are various causes of research misconduct:–a mistake, lack of knowledge, an accident,
ignorance, carelessness, arrogance, fudging
research results, etc.
The causes may vary, but some misconduct could
have been preventable and avoidable if theresearchers had been aware of research ethics.

Categories of Research Conduct
1. An acceptable, non-blamable, and/or recommendable practice
2. A practice in a “grey area”
3a. A practice in which deception is involved but permissible
3b. A morally questionable practice
4. Research misconduct

Prevention and Avoidance of Misconduct
An intentional act of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism
axiomatically constitutes research misconduct and a
violation of research ethics.
However, it is often difficult to judge whether a given act meetsthe requirements of research ethics.
If so, the question to be addressed is how we can deal withgrey area cases and prevent and avoid unintended and/or
careless but questionable research practices.

6. Three Attitudes
towards Research Ethics

Three Attitudes towards Research Ethics
Three attitudes towards research ethics:
1. Compliance model: “we will abide by research ethics
because we would be condemned and punished if we did not”.
2. Social responsibility model: “we will abide by research ethics
because the premise is that we fulfill social responsibility as
research professionals”.
3. Positiveness model: “we will abide by research ethics sinceresearch is our honour, pleasure, worth living for, raisond’être ”.

1. Compliance Model
The basic idea: researchers abide by research ethics so thatthey do not get condemned or punished.
Rationale: to avoid disbenefits – primarily to oneself andsecondly to one’s colleagues and/or institution.
Characteristic: this model could passively motivate
researchers to abide by research ethics.
Problem: this may cause a wrong idea that “anything else is
OK unless an act is prohibited by rules”. This might produce
loophole-seekers or sensible knaves who eschew rules.

2. Social Responsibility Model
The basic idea: researchers abide by research ethics in orderto fulfil social responsibility as research professionals.
Rationale: as members in the profession of research,
researchers owe responsibility to society to uphold thehighest professional standards and ethics.
Characteristic: this model fits with our commonsense idea as
to why research ethics is important.
Problem: A sense of social responsibility does not always
strongly motivate researchers to follow research ethics.

3. Positiveness Model
The basic idea: researchers abide by research ethics because
research is their honour and pleasure.
Rationale: upholding research ethics is a process of self-realisation,
self-validation and self-affirmation, and by so doing researchers
can enjoy their profession with pride, honour and pleasure.
Characteristic: this model could positively motivate researchers toabide by research ethics.
Potential problem: it may lead to self-righteousness, selfindulgence, and self-deception; humility is a virtue required to
avoid these pitfalls.

Attitudes and Virtues
The three attitudes towards research ethics are not mutually
exclusive. Rather, they are complementary and work inharmony.
Virtues for “good” researchers include:– 1. integrity– 2. commitment– 3. service– 4. positiveness with humility and modesty– 5. prudence to avoid unnecessary disbenefits

7. Tests for Judgement of an Act

Tests for Judgement of an Act
1. Professional test: is the act permissible by reference
to the professional standard?
2. Harm test: does the act potentially cause serious
harm to others and/or yourself, physically, mentallyor both?
3. Reversibility test: what would you think if anotherperson did this? Is it permissible, acceptable, and/or
not blamable?

Tests for Judgement of an Act
4. Universalisability test: what would happen if
everyone did such an act? Is it permissible,
acceptable, and/or not blamable?
5. Publicity test: Can you disclose your act to yourcolleagues and bosses, the academic society you
belong to and the public? Would your act be blamedor condemned if it were known to bystanders as well
as stakeholders?

How to Use the Tests
Check an act with each test.
• If it passes all tests it would satisfy research ethics.
• If it fails all tests it would constitute research
misconduct.
• If it fails one or more, it should be suspected toconstitute misconduct or be in a grey area.

Functions of Tests
1. To clarify cases in which an act categoricallyconstitutes research misconduct.
2. To remind us of, prevent and avoid unintentional or
careless misconduct or questionable research
practices.
3. To empower us to consider and better deal withcomplex and/or context-dependent situations in which
an act in question is in a grey area or suspected toconstitute misconduct.

8. Imaginary Case

Unethical Research Laboratory?
“It seems to you that the means and methods ofresearch taken by a senior PhD candidate do notsatisfy research ethics…”
What should you do?

Unethical Research Laboratory?
The detailed situation– You were enrolled in your first choice of research laboratory. At the lab, a senior colleague
teaches you means and methods of research. He is very talented in research and famed for hisbrilliance. He will shortly finish writing his PhD thesis. One day, by accident, you see his researchnotebook open and left on the communal desk. You notice that the data written in the notebook
seem strange…The data in the notebook are different from those obtained by the experiments!

Unethical Research Laboratory?
Here, suppose that you think in this way:
– “He is not engaged in an illegal act but his act seems an act of falsification. If so, it must be
research misconduct. But I might have misunderstood. He is respected by other members of thelab and trusted by professors. He has taken care of me well. He has a job offer from a worldfamous research institute.”

Unethical Research Laboratory?
– “What if he published a research paper based on dubious data? What if someone elsefound that the data in question were falsified after the paper was published? Obviously, hewould be in trouble. Possibly his supervisors would be too. Moreover, it would be a criticalmatter of reputation of the lab and university. Is it none of my business? Perhaps not.”Unethical Research Laboratory?
– “Wait a second. Do other members of the lab know about his practice? Does his supervisor
know? Is it considered to be a generally accepted standard operational procedure? Is it just a
culture in the lab and academia in general? Maybe I just do not understand the correct
response. But I am not sure whether it is perfectly OK to leave it alone.”

What should you do as a researcher in this situation by reference to research ethics?

Consider the Imaginary Case
Consider what you should (or should not) do in theimaginary case.
Step 1: list as many acts as you can imagine.
Step 2: check each act with each test.
Step 3: compare the results and put in order the acts
you should (or should not) do, according to moral
permissiveness, feasibility and timeline.

9. Conclusion

Conclusion• Researchers need research ethics, not only because it
makes them aware of the potential disbenefits caused byresearch misconduct but also because it actually helps
them prevent/avoid misconduct.
• Researchers are professionals whose mission is tocontribute to further promotion of the advancement ofknowledge of humankind through their professional
activities (research as the pursuit of truth).

Conclusion (contd.)• Research ethics means:
1) a special kind of professional ethics peculiar to
those members in the research profession;2) ethics necessary for researchers when they are
engaged in their business.

Conclusion (contd.)• The tests for judgement of an act in question
empower us to consider and better deal withcomplex and/or context-dependent situations inwhich an act is in a grey area or suspected of
constituting misconduct.

References
Barrow, R.,& Keeney, P. (2006). Academic Ethics. Burlington,
Ashgate.
Bylan, M.A. (2006). The Ethics of Teaching. Burlington, Ashgate.
Coady, M.,& Bloch, S. (1996). Codes of Ethics and theProfessions. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press.
Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the University. London , Routledge.

References
Koehn, D. (1994). The Ground of Professional Ethics. London ,Routledge.
Penslar, R.L. (1995). Research Ethics:Cases ＆ materials.
Bloomington & Indianapolis, Indiana University Press.
Rowan, J.,& Zinaich, S.Jr. (2003). Ethics for the Professions.
Belmont,Cengage learning.
Steneck, N.H. (2003). ORI Introduction to the Responsible
Conduct of Research. Rockville, Office of Research Integrity.

Acknowledgements

This video was kindly funded by the Officeof the President, Hokkaido University.

Produced by Center for Open Education, Hokkaido University