rm - 2013 slides- part 1
DESCRIPTION
research methodsTRANSCRIPT
-
Research Methods 1
Week 1
mit enesen - Tolga Kaya
Research Methods - Week 1 1
-
What are the greatest scientific
discoveries?
Write down your own top ten.
Research Methods - Week 1 2
-
What is science?
Science is an attempt to understand, explain, and predict the world we live in.
Is this a reasonable answer?
If so, what about If so, what about
religion,
astrology,
history,
fortunetelling?
Research Methods - Week 1 3
-
What is science?Do subjects such as
physics,
chemistry,
biology,
art, art,
alchemy,
psychoanalysis
history
constitute science?
What is it that makes something science?
Research Methods - Week 1 4
-
What is it that makes something science?
Many people believe that the distinguishing features of
science lie in the methods scientists use to explain theworld:
Experimentation
Observation Observation
Testing
Theory construction
Can astronomers do experiments on heavens?
Can sociologists conduct tests on society?
Are there successfull general theories in all areas?
Research Methods - Week 1 5
-
Philosophy of science (POS)
The principle task of philosophy of science (POS) is to analyse the methods of inquiry used in science.
A part of the job of POS is to question theassumptions that scientists take for granted.
A definition:
POS is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the
assumptions, foundations, methods, and implicationsof science.
Research Methods - Week 1 6
-
POS, epistemology & metaphysics
POS sometimes overlaps with the notions
of epistemology and metaphysics by exploring whether scientific results are actually a study of truth.
Epistemology: The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.
What is knowledge? How can knowledge be acquired?
To what extent is it possible for us to know a given
subject or entity?
Research Methods - Week 1 7
-
POS, metaphysics, & natural philosophy
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being (ontology) and the phenomena within the universe (cosmology).
Prior to the modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy (NP).
The scientific method, however, transformed NP into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy.
By the end of the 18th century, NP had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy.
Research Methods - Week 1 8
-
Origins of modern science
The scientific revolution did not come from
knowhere.
In the earlier periods, the dominant view
was Aristotelianism.
Aristotle put forward detailed theories in physics,
Research Methods - Week 1 9
Aristotle put forward detailed theories in physics, biology, astronomy, and cosmology.
Contrary to modern chemistry, he believed that all
earthly bodies are composed of four elements: earth, fire, air, and water.
-
Origins of modern science
The first step in the development of modern
science was the Copernican revolution.
In 1542 Nicolas Copernicus published a book which
attacked the geocentric model of the universe.
Geocentric (Ptolemaic)
Research Methods - Week 1 10
Geocentric (Ptolemaic)
astronomy laid at the
heart of Aristotelian view.
It had been unchallenged
for about 1800 years.
-
Origins of modern science
According to Copernicus
the sun was fixed at the
centre of the universe,
the planets, including
the earth, were in orbit
Research Methods - Week 1 11
the earth, were in orbit
around the sun.
Following Copernicus, Kepler (1571-1630) discovered that planets do not move in circularorbits but rather in ellipses.
-
Origins of modern science
Keplers laws provided a far superior
planetary theory than had ever been
advanced before.
Galileo (1564-1642) was also a life-long supporterof Copernicanism.
He discovered a vast array of stars, mountains on
Research Methods - Week 1 12
He discovered a vast array of stars, mountains on the moon, sun-spots, and the moons of Jupiter.
However, his most crucial contribution was the lawof free fall.
He objected the Aristotelean theory that
heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones.
-
Origins of modern science
Galileo was the first modern physicist.
He was the first to show that the language
of mathematics could be used to describe
the material world.
Another innovative feature of Galileos work was
Research Methods - Week 1 13
Another innovative feature of Galileos work washis emphasis on the importance of testinghypotheses experimentally.
To the modern scientist usage of experimentationmay seem obvious.
But at his time experimentation was not generallyregarded as a reliable tool of gaining knowledge.
-
Origins of modern science
Following Galileo, French philosopher,
mathematician, and scientist Ren Descartes (1596-1650) developed his mechanical philosophy.
According to it, physical world consists simply of
inert particles of matter interacting and colliding
Research Methods - Week 1 14
inert particles of matter interacting and collidingwith one another.
Mechanical philosophy quickly became
the dominant scientific vision of the end
of 17th century and marked the downfall
of the Aristotelian world view.
-
Origins of modern science
Newtons achievements stand unparalleled in thehistory of science.
His masterpiece was Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.
Newton agreed with the mechanicalphilosophers that the universe
Research Methods - Week 1 15
Newton agreed with the mechanicalphilosophers that the universeconsists of particles in motion.
He developed a dynamical andmechanical theory of great power.
The theory was based on the three laws of motionand his famous principle of universal gravitation.
-
Origins of modern science
Newton developped his theory with greatmathematical precision, inventing the
technique (with Leibniz?) we now call
calculus.
Strikingly, he was able to show that Keplers laws
Research Methods - Week 1 16
Strikingly, he was able to show that Keplers laws of planetary motion and Galileos law of free fall were logical consequences of his laws of motion and gravitation.
Newtonian physics provided the framework for science for the next 200 years and advanced the scientific revolution.
-
Origins of modern science Confidence in Newtonian perspective did
not shatter until the early years of 20th
century.
Einstein, with his relativity theory, showed that Newtonian mechanics does
Research Methods - Week 1 17
showed that Newtonian mechanics does
not give the right results when applied to
very massive objects.
On the other hand, quantum mechanicsshowed that Newtonian theory did not
work when applied on a very small scale, subatomic particles.
-
Origins of modern science In the history of biology, the most
influential event was the publication of
The Origin of Species in 1859.
Darwin argued that contemporaryspecies have actually evolved from
Research Methods - Week 1 18
species have actually evolved from
ancestral ones, through a process of
natural selection.
In 1953 Watson and Crick (Franklin?) the structure of DNA, the hereditarymaterial that makes up the genes in
the cells of living creatures.
-
New disciplines in science
Social sciences
Linguistics
Molecular biology
Computer science
Research Methods - Week 1 19
Computer science
Artificial intelligence
Neuroscience
Cognitive science
-
Typical problems in philosophy of science
The demarcation problem: What is the distinctionbetween the scientific and non-scientific?
Poppers notion of falsifiablity.
The problem of scientific reasoning:
Deduction vs induction. Deduction vs induction.
Humes problem.
Inference to the best explanation (IBE).
The problem of scientific explanation:
Hempels covering law. The problem of symmetry.
The problem of irrelevance. Does casuality exist?
Research Methods - Week 1 20
-
The demarcation problem: Science or non-science
Karl Popper thought that the fundamental feature of a scientific theory is that it should be falsifiable.
To call a theory falsifiable is not to say that it is false.
Rather, it means that the theory makes some definitepredictions that are capable of being tested .predictions that are capable of being tested .
If these predictions turn out to be wrong, then the
theory has been falsified, or disproved.
Popper thought that some supposedly scientific
theories did not satisfy this condition and thus did not
deserve to be called science at all. (Ex: Psychoanalysis)
Rather they were merely pseudo-science.Research Methods - Week 1 21
-
Critics of Popper
Some philosophers regarded Popper's criterion as overly
simplistic.
Example: Newton's theory made predictions about the paths of the planets. However, the observed orbit of Uranus consistentlydiffered from predictions.
In 1846 two scientists working independently (Adams and
Leverrier ) suggested that there was an undiscovered planetLeverrier ) suggested that there was an undiscovered planetexerting an additional gravitational force of Uranus.
They were able to calculate the mass and position of this planet
would have to have, if its gravitational pull was indeed
responsible for Uranus strange behavior.
Shortly afterwards the planet Neptune was discovered, almost exactly where Adams and Leverrier had predicted.
Research Methods - Week 1 22
-
Critics to Popper
Can we criticize Adams'and Leverrier's behaviour
as unscientific?
After all, it led to the discovery of a new planet.
But they did precisely what Popper criticized and
sticked with a theory that should be consideredsticked with a theory that should be considered
falsified.
Is it actually possible to find some commonfeature shared by all the things we call 'science', and not shared by anything else?
DEMARCATION PROBLEMResearch Methods - Week 1 23
-
Demarcation problem: Science or non-science
Wittgenstein argued that there is no
fixed set of features that define what
it is to be a 'game'.
Rather, there is a cluster of features most which Rather, there is a cluster of features most which
are possessed by most games.
Yet any particular game may lack any of the features in the cluster and still be a game.
May the same be true of science?
Research Methods - Week 1 24
-
Problem of Scientific Reasoning
What exactly is the nature of scientific reasoning?
How much confidence should we place in the
inferences scientists make?
Deduction
Deductive Inference: If the premisses are true, then the conclusion must be true too.conclusion must be true too.
Example: The first two statements are called
the premisses of the inference.
The third statement is called the
conclusion.
Premiss: A statement or idea that is accepted as being true and that is used as the basis of an argument (www.merriam-webster.com, 2012). 25
-
Deductive reasoning
What makes the inference deductive is theexistence of an appropriate relation between
premisses and conclusion.
If the premisses are true, the conclusion must be true too. be true too.
Whether the premisses are actually true is adifferent matter, which does not affect the status of the inference as deductive.
If the premisses are wrong, than the conclusioncan be wrong too.
Research Methods - Week 1 26
-
Inductive Reasoning
The first five eggs in the box were rotten.All the eggs have the same best-before date on them.Therefore the sixth egg will be rotten too.
This piece of reasoning is not deductive, for the premisses do not entail the conclusion. premisses do not entail the conclusion.
Even if the first five eggs in the box were rotten, this
does not guarantee that the sixth egg will be rotten too.
It is logically possible for the premiss of this inference
to be true and yet the conclusion false.
This is known as an inductive inference. Research Methods - Week 1 27
-
Inductive Reasoning
In inductive inference, or inductive reasoning, we move from premisses about objects we have examined to conclusions about objects we haven't examined.
Although deductive reasoning is a much safer activity
than inductive reasoning, scientists frequently make use
of inductive reasoning. of inductive reasoning.
Geneticists tell that Downs syndrome (DS) sufferershave an extra chromozome. How do they know this?
They examine a large number of DS sufferers and
observe that each have an additional chromosome.
They then infer inductively the conclusion that all DS sufferers have an extra chromosome.
Research Methods - Week 1 28
-
Inductive Reasoning
Newton did not arrive at his principle of universalgravitation by examining every single body in the whole universe.
Rather, he saw that the principle held true for the
planets and the sun, and for objects of various sorts
moving near the earth's surface. moving near the earth's surface.
From this data he inferred that the principle held true for all bodies.
Again, this inference was obviously an inductive one.
The fact that Newton's principle holds true for some
bodies doesn't guarantee that it holds true for all bodies.
Research Methods - Week 1 29
-
Inductive vs deductive reasoning
It's obvious that science relies heavily on inductivereasoning.
But, remarkably, Popper claimed that scientists onlyneed to use deductive inferences.
Popper argued that although it is not possible to prove
that a scientific theory is true from a limited sample, it is that a scientific theory is true from a limited sample, it is
possible to prove that a theory is false.
Popper's argument was strong when scientists are only
interested in showing that certain theories are false.
But, what would a scientist who collected experimental
data to convince people that her own theory is true do?
Wouldnt she have to use inductive reasoning? Research Methods - Week 1 30
-
Humes problem Hume pointed out that an inductive inference rests on the
uniformity of nature (UN) assumption.
UN: Objects we havent examined will be similar, in the relevant respects, to objects of the same sort that we have
examined.
But we cannot prove that UN is true, and we
cannot produce empirical evidence for its truth.
UN is itself an inductive argument, and so itself depends on the UN assumption.
So our inductive inferences rest on an assumption about
the world for which we have no good grounds.
Hume concludes that our confidence in induction is just
blind faith - it admits of no rational justification whatever.Research Methods - Week 1 31
-
The man who doesnt believe in induction
To argue that induction is
trustworthy because it has worked
well up to now is to reason in an
inductive way.
Such an argument would carry Such an argument would carry
no weight with someone who
doesnt already trust induction.
That was Humes fundamental
point.
But thihk what would happen if
we didnt belive in inductive reasoningResearch Methods - Week 1 32
-
The Wheel of Science: Induction & Deduction
Research Methods - Week 1 33Babbie
-
Inference to the best solution (IBS)
The cheese has disappeared apart from a few crumbsScratching noises were heard last nightTherefore, the cheese was eaten by a mouse
It is obvious that this inference is non-deductive: thepremisses do not entail the conclusion. premisses do not entail the conclusion.
The cheese could have been stolen by someone, who cleverly left a few crumbs to make it look like the handiwork of a mouse.
The scratching noises could be due to the boileroverheating.
Nonetheless, the inference is clearly a reasonable one.Research Methods - Week 1 34
-
Inference to the best solution (IBS)
After all, people do not normally steal cheese, and boilers
do not tend to overheat. Whereas mice do normally eat
cheese when they get the chance, and make sounds.
So although we cannot be certain that the mouse
hypothesis is true, on balance it looks quite plausible.
It is the best way of accounting for the available data. It is the best way of accounting for the available data.
Reasoning of this sort is known as inference to the bestexplanation (IBE).
Scientists frequently use IBE (Darwin, Einstein etc.)
lf we want use IBE we need to decide which of the competing hypotheses provides the best explanation.
Research Methods - Week 1 35
-
Occams razor & parsimony
But what criteria to determine this?
A popular answer is that the best explanation
is the simplest or the most parsimonious one.
Consider again the cheese example.
Preferring a theory that explains the data using Preferring a theory that explains the data using
fewest number of causes does seem sensible.
On the other hand, how do we know that the universe is
simple rather than complex?
Is there any objective reason for thinking that such a
theory is more likely to be true than a less simple theory?
How can we know that Occams razor is the sharpest?Research Methods - Week 1 36
-
The problem of scientific explanation
Modern science is successfull in supplying explanations.
Chemists can explain why sodium turns yellow when it
burns.
Astronomers can explain why solar eclipse occur.
Economists can explain why the yen declined in value in Economists can explain why the yen declined in value in
the 198os.
But what exactly is scientific explanation?
What exactly does it mean to say that a phenomenon can be 'explained by science?
In the 195os by the American philosopher Carl Hempelproposed a model of scientific explanation.
Research Methods - Week 1 37
-
Hempels covering law (CL)
According to Hempel, to give a scientific
explanation is to provide a satisfactory answer
to an explanation-seeking why question.
The matter is to determine the essential features thatsuch an answer must have.
Research Methods - Week 1 38
Hempel's answer to the problem was three-fold:
Firstly, the premisses shoud entail the conclusion, i.e. The argument should be deductive one.
Secondly, the premisses should all be true.
Thirdly, the premisses should consist of at least one general law.
-
Hempels covering law (CL)
General laws (GL): Laws of nature like All metals conduct electricity or all plants contain chlorophyll.
explanandum
explanans
Research Methods - Week 1 39
electricity or all plants contain chlorophyll.
Example: Why did the plant on my desk die?
GL1: Sunlight is necessary for photosynthesis.
GL2: Photosynthesis is necessary for survival.
Particular fact: The plant was not getting any sunlight.
Given the truth of the two laws and the particular fact, the death of the plant had to occur.
-
Hempels covering law Hempel drew an interesting philosophical consequence
from his model about the relation between explanationand prediction.
Hempel thought: Every reliable explanation is potentiallya prediction, as it would have served to predict thephenomenon in question, had it not already been known.
Research Methods - Week 1 40
phenomenon in question, had it not already been known.
Every reliable prediction is potentially an explanation as well. These are two sides of the same coin.
Explanation and prediction are structurally symmetric.
Though Hempels CL model captures many cases it is often criticized of being too liberal. It allows in things tobe excluded.
-
The problem of symmetry Suppose you are lying on the beach on a sunny day, and you notice that a
flagpole is casting a shadow of 20 metres across the sand. Someone asks
you to explain why the shadow is 20 metres long.
Your answer: Light rays from the sun are hitting the flagpole which is exactly 15 metres high. The angle of the sun is 370. Since light travels in
straight lines, a simple trigonometric calculation (tan 370 =15/20) shows
that the flagpole will cast a shadow 20 metres long.
Research Methods - Week 1 41
-
The problem of symmetry.
Research Methods - Week 1 42
-
The problem of irrelevance Suppose a young child is in a hospital in a room full of
pregnant women. The child notices that one person in the room - who is a man called John - is not pregnantand asks the doctor why not?
Doctor replies:
Johns been taking birth-control pills regularly last few years.
Research Methods - Week 1 43
People who take control pills regularly never become pregnant.Therefore, John has not become pregnant. The explanation fits the CL model perfectly.
But, the correct explanation, obviously, is that he is male and males can not become pregnant.
Again CL model is too permissive.
-
Causality CL model encounters so many problems, it is natural to
look for an alternative way of understanding scientific
explanation.
Some philosophers believe that the key lies in the
concept of causality.
Because, the concept of explanation exhibits an
Research Methods - Week 1 44
Because, the concept of explanation exhibits an important asymmetry.
In general, if x explains y given the relevant laws and facts, then it will not be true that y explains x, given the same laws and facts.
Now causality is obviously an asymmetric relation too: if x is the cause of y, then y is not the cause of x.
-
Humes critics
Empiricism says that all our knowledge comes from experience, empricists are traditionally very suspiciousof the concept of causality.
David Hume, a leading empricist, argued that it is impossible to experience causal relations.
Because causality is a figment of our imagination!
Research Methods - Week 1 45
Because causality is a figment of our imagination!
This is a very hard conclusion to accept.
Surely it is an objective fact that dropping glass vases causes them to break? Hume denied this!
Glass vases that have been dropped have
in fact broken. But our idea of causality
includes more than this.
-
Does causality exist?
It includes the idea of a causal link between the dropping and the breaking, i.e. that the former brings about the latter.
No such links are to be found in the world. Accordingto Hume: all we see is a vase being dropped, and then it breaking a moment later.
Research Methods - Week 1 46
it breaking a moment later.
We experience no causal connection between the first event and the second.
According to Hume: causality is therefore a fiction.
Today, many philosophers still think that the concept of causality, although philosophically problematic, is indispensable to how we understand the world.
-
What is science?
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testableexplanations and predictions about the universe (W).
Science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, Science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logicallyand rationally explained.
Science is both a body of knowledge and the process for building that knowledge.
Research Methods - Week 1 47
-
What is not science?
Science works only with testable ideas and it aims to build explanations of the natural world.
Moral judgments,
Aesthetic judgments, Aesthetic judgments,
Decisions about applications of science,
Conclusions about the supernatural,
are outside the realm of science(http://undsci.berkeley.edu)
Research Methods - Week 1 48
-
What is science?
Scientific knowledge is open to question and revision as new ideas surface and new evidence is discovered.
Because it has been tested, scientific knowledge is
reliable.reliable.
Scientific ideas cannot be absolutely proven.
Science is ongoing;
Answering one scientific question frequently leads
to additional questions to be investigated.
Research Methods - Week 1 49
-
What is science?
Scientists try to be objective and work to identify and avoid bias.
Different scientists may interpret the same data in
different ways.
Data interpretation can be influenced by a scientist's Data interpretation can be influenced by a scientist's assumptions, biases, and background.
Researchers share their findings with the scientific community through scientific publications.
Scientists aim for their studies to be replicable
(http://undsci.berkeley.edu)).Research Methods - Week 1 50
-
What is Science?
Research Methods - Week 1 51
-
Research Methods - Week 1 52
-
The assumptions of Science
Nature is orderly.
We can know nature.
Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
Natural phenomena have natural causes.
Nothing is self evident.
Knowledge is derived from the acquisiton of
experience (empirical).
Research Methods - Week 1 53
-
The research process
Scientific knowledge relies on both reason andexperience.
Two main criteria for to evaluate claims:
Logical validity
Empirical verification
These two criteria are translated into research
activities through the research process.
Research Methods - Week 1 54
-
Research Process
Research Methods - Week 1 55Nachmias & Nachmias
-
The hallmarks of scientific research
Purposiveness
Rigor
Testability
Replicability Replicability
Precision and Confidence
Objectivity
Generalizability
Parsimony
Research Methods 1 56
-
Scientific Method
Scientific method is a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century,
consisting in
systematic observation,
measurement, measurement,
experiment,
the formulation, testing, and modification of
hypotheses (Oxford English Dictionary).
Research Methods - Week 1 57
-
Steps of Scientific Method. Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and
collecting data in a reproducible manner
Research Methods - Week 1 58
collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a
starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
(Crawford & Stucki, 1990)
-
Research Process
Research Methods - Week 1 59
-
Research Methods - Week 1 60
-
Building blocks of scientific inquiry
Research Methods - Week 1 61Sekaran
-
Research Process
Research Methods - Week 1 62Sekaran
-
Research Methods - Week 1 63
-
Researchers submitting a paper for publication in a journal should check the journal's Instructions for Authors, which will normally be available on the journal's website.
ACS (American Chemical Society)
AGLC (Australian Guide to Legal Citation)
AGPS/AGIMO (Australian Government Publishing Service)
Referencing Styles
Research Methods - Week 1 64
AGPS/AGIMO (Australian Government Publishing Service)
AMA (American Medical Association)
APA (American Psychological Association) Chicago Manual of Style
CSE (Council of Science Editors)
Harvard
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)
MLA (Modern Language Association of America)
Vancouver
-
APA format for different types of references
Research Methods 1 65
-
Specimen format
Research Methods 1 66
-
Specimen format
Research Methods 1 67
-
Specimen format
Research Methods 1 68
-
Referencing nonprint media
Research Methods 1 69
-
Referencing and quotation in literature review
Research Methods 1 70
-
Referencing and quotation in literature review
Research Methods - Week 1 71
-
Referencing and quotation in literature review
Research Methods 1 72
-
Referencing and quotation in literaturereview
73
-
Referencing and quotation in literaturereview
74
-
Codes of ethics in researchHonestyStrive for honesty in all scientific communications.
Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, and publication status.
Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data.
Do not deceive colleagues, granting agencies, or the public.
ObjectivityStrive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required.
Avoid or minimize bias or self-deception.
Disclose personal or financial interests that may affect research.
IntegrityKeep your promises and agreements;
Act with sincerity; strive for consistency of thought and action.
-
Codes of ethics in researchCarefulnessAvoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers.
Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.
OpennessShare data, results, ideas, tools, resources.
Be open to criticism and new ideas.Be open to criticism and new ideas.
Respect for Intellectual PropertyHonor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property.
Do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission.
Give credit where credit is due.
Give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research.
Never plagiarize.
-
Codes of ethics in research
ConfidentialityProtect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records.
Responsible PublicationPublish in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career. just your own career.
Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.
Responsible MentoringHelp to educate, mentor, and advise students.
Promote their welfare and allow them to make their own decisions.
Respect for colleaguesRespect your colleagues and treat them fairly.
-
Codes of ethics in researchSocial ResponsibilityStrive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public education, and advocacy.
Non-DiscriminationAvoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors that are not related to their scientific competence and integrity.
CompetenceMaintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole.
LegalityKnow and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.
-
Codes of ethics in researchAnimal CareShow proper respect and care for animals when using them in research.
Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.
Human Subjects ProtectionHuman Subjects ProtectionWhen conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits;
Respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy;
Take special precautions with vulnerable populations;
Strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly.
Source: Resnik, 2012
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/, (09.10.2012)
Adapted from Shamoo A and Resnik D. 2009. Responsible Conduct of Research, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press).