vamos a hacerlo bien hecho- conducta Ética y responsable en la investigación

MARCEL CASTRO -S IT IR ICHE , INELCHRISTOPHER PAPADOPOULOS, INGE

AIDSA SANTIAGO -ROMAN, INGE

VAMOS A HACERLO BIEN HECHO- CONDUCTA ÉTICA Y RESPONSABLE EN LA

INVESTIGACIÓN

11 DE ENERO DE 2012

PRELIMINARIES

• Please divide into groups of five persons. Each group should have at least one person proficient in English and not everyone should be in the same field of study.• At various points you will be asked to work

in groups. During each activity, appoint someone to• Keep time• Record notes• Give overall directions

WARM UP ETHICS ACTIVITY

Source - https://picasaweb.google.com/109139092475651784258/LeDilemmeDuTrolleyEtSesVariantes

https://picasaweb.google.com/109139092475651784258/LeDilemmeDuTrolleyEtSesVariantes

ETHIC DILEMMA

• TRAIN PROBLEM• Basic Case: 5 workers in rails vs. 1

What would you do and why?

ETHIC DILEMMA

• TRAIN PROBLEM• Basic Case: 5 workers in rails vs. 1• Other Cases:• 5 with terminal disease, 1 healthy

What would you do and why?

ETHIC DILEMMA

Source - https://picasaweb.google.com/109139092475651784258/LeDilemmeDuTrolleyEtSesVariantes

https://picasaweb.google.com/109139092475651784258/LeDilemmeDuTrolleyEtSesVariantes

ETHIC DILEMMA

• TRAIN PROBLEM• Basic Case: 5 workers in rails vs. 1• Other Cases:• 5 with terminal disease, 1 healthy

• 5 vs. 1 that is mom

• 5 workers in rails vs. one in the bridge (push or not)

OUTLINE

• Overview

• Plagiarism and Related Issues

• Human Subjects Research

• Social Context and Social Responsibility

OVERVIEW OF ETHICAL ISSUES (BASED ON RESPONSES FROM GERESE PROJECT)

• Plagiarism (plagio y robo de ideas), Falsification (falsificación) and Fabrication (fabricación)• Scientific Rigor (Rigor científico)• Authorship (autoría)• Record Keeping (documentación)• Misrepresenting Expertise (competencia)• Power Disparity (abuso de poder)• Partiality (amiguismo)• Human Subjects (seres humanos)• Social Context & Responsibility (responsabilidad

social)http://cnx.org/content/m19570/latest/

SEPARATE OR INTEGRATED?

How is studying ethics helpful to understanding your graduate studies and research culture?

“re

“Actual” Research(investigación real)

Ethics “tax”(impuesto de ética)

Ethics

Academics

Professional Developmen

t& Practice

OVERVIEW OF ETHICAL ISSUES

• Plagiarism (plagio y robo de ideas), Falsification (falsificación) and Fabrication (fabricación)• Scientific Rigor (rigor científico)• Authorship (autoría)• Record Keeping (documentación)• Misrepresenting Expertise (competencia)• Power Disparity (abuso de poder)• Partiality (amiguismo)• Human Subjects (seres humanos)• Social Context & Responsibility (responsabilidad

social)

WHAT DEFINES AUTHOR ORDER?

HOW MANY AUTHORS?

562 AUTHORS …

… FROM 74 INSTITUTIONS!

PLAGIARISM

• What is Plagiarism (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)• Steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one's own.• Use another's production without crediting the source; literary theft.• Present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing

source.

• Cases of Plagiarism (www.plagiarism.org)• Turning in someone else's work as your own.• Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit.• Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks.• Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation.• Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving

credit.• Copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of

your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules).

• Avoiding Plagiarism (www.plagiarism.org)• Citing sources. • Acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed.• Providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source.• Reading and synthesizing many sources

PLAGIARISM EXERCISE

"A class of maize mutants, collectively known as disease lesion mimics, display discrete disease-like symptoms in the absence of pathogens. It is intriguing that a majority of these lesion mimics behave as dominant gain-of-function mutations. The production of lesions is strongly influenced by light, temperature, developmental state and genetic background. Presently, the biological significance of this lesion mimicry is not clear, although suggestions have been made that they may represent defects in the plants' recognition of, or response to, pathogens. ... In this paper we argue that this might be the case ..." [G.S. Johal, S.H. Hulbert, and S.P. Briggs. 1995. 'Disease lesion mimics of maize: a model for cell death in plants.” BioEssays 17:685-692]http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/comstock/langure/ethics/php816/modules/plagiarism/biology_new_open.phphttps://mywebspace.wisc.edu/rstreiffer/web/CourseFolders/MHB999S10/03_Exercise%20-%20Life%20Sciences%20Plagiarism%20Key.pdf

PLAGIARISM EXERCISE

"A class of maize mutants, collectively known as disease lesion mimics, display discrete disease-like symptoms in the absence of pathogens. It is intriguing that a majority of these lesion mimics behave as dominant gain-of-function mutations. The production of lesions is strongly influenced by light, temperature, developmental state and genetic background. Presently, the biological significance of this lesion mimicry is not clear, although suggestions have been made that they may represent defects in the plants' recognition of, or response to, pathogens. ... In this paper we argue that this might be the case ..." [G.S. Johal, S.H. Hulbert, and S.P. Briggs. 1995. 'Disease lesion mimics of maize: a model for cell death in plants.” BioEssays 17:685-692]

PLAGIARISM EXERCISE 1

Original Text …

Presently, the biological significance of this lesion mimicry is not clear, although suggestions have been made that they may represent defects in the plants' recognition of, or response to, pathogens. ... In this paper we argue that this might be the case ...

You write …

Currently, the biological significance of lesion mimicry in plants is not known, although suggestions have been made that they may represent defects in the plants' recognition of, or response to, pathogens.


Original Text …


You write …

Currently, “the biological significance” of lesion mimicry in plants is not known, “although suggestions have been made that they may represent defects in the plants' recognition of, or response to, pathogens” (Johal et al, 1995).


Original Text …


You write …

Currently, “the biological

significance” of lesion mimicry in plants is not

known, “although suggestions have been made that they may represent defects in the plants' recognition of, or response to,

pathogens” (Johal et al., 1995).


Original Text …


You write …

Several researchers are investigating the significance of lesion mimicry. Johal et al. (1995) argue that they may represent defects in the plants' recognition of, or response to, pathogens. However, other researchers (e.g., XYZ), have disputed this.


Original Text …


You write …

Several researchers are investigating the significance of lesion mimicry. Johal et al. (1995) argue that they may indicate mutations that inhibit the plants’ ability to recognize and respond to pathogens. However, other researchers (e.g., XYZ, 2004), have disputed this.

RELATED TO PLAGIARISM

• Fabrication (see case of John Darsee)• Falsification• Fair Use of Copyrighted Material

HUMAN SUBJECTS

• Institutional Review Board (IRB)• Comité para la protección de los seres humanos en la

investigación (CPSHI)

• Transfondo Histórico• Someter las propuestas de investigación a revisión o

escrutinio ético independiente del investigador, con el fin de evaluar el balance entre riesgos y beneficios y de velar por que el consentimiento de los sujetos fuese informado y voluntario.

• Ejemplos de algunos estudios con serias violaciones:• El estudio sobre el proceso de deliberación de los jurados o Wichita

Jury Study (1955); • El estudio para el desarrollo de la vacuna de la hepatitis, mejor

conocido como Willowbrook Study (década de los años '50); • Los estudios sobre la obediencia de Milgram (principios de los años

60) • El estudio de Tuskegee (1932-1972).

HUMAN SUBJECTS

• Trasfondo Histórico:• National Research Act (Public Law 93-348, 12 de julio de

1974). • Aprobada por el Congreso de EU.• Estableció los fundamentos del actual sistema de comités • Estableció la National Commission for the Protection of

Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. • Recomendar regulaciones • Identificar principios generales para guiar la investigación con

seres humanos en biomedicina y en las ciencias de la conducta.• Su trabajo fue de capital importancia para el desarrollo de las

protecciones para los participantes humanos en la investigación científica.

• 45 CFR 46 • Rige el trabajo del IRB de nuestro Recinto.

UPRM IRB: HTTP://WWW.UPRM.EDU/CPSHI/

HUMAN SUBJECTS

• Las Tareas del IRB • Revisar todos los protocolos de revisión no exentos, 45

CFR 46.101. • De no ser exenta, ver si cualifica para revisión expedita o

si debe ir a “ full committee review”. • Revisión expedita,

• No es necesario que todos los miembros del Comité estudien la propuesta pero deben estar informados de los estudios aprobados de esta manera.

• La determinación la hace el presidente del Comité y la revisión la lleva a cabo él mismo o designa a otros miembros del Comité.

• “Full committee review” • Cada miembro del Comité debería recibir el protocolo (y su

resumen), las hojas de documentación del consentimiento informado y el formulario de solicitud de revisión.

HUMAN SUBJECTS

• Consideraciones del Comité al evaluar los protocolos:• Diseño y mérito científico. • Procedimientos para conseguir a los sujetos. Si se trata de

una población vulnerable, el investigador tiene que justificar su uso. La reglamentación federal establece las poblaciones que se deben considerar vulnerables.

• La descripción de los procedimientos de investigación y los instrumentos para verificar que se proteja la identidad de los participantes.

• Riesgos e incomodidades para los sujetos. • Posibles beneficios para los sujetos o para la ciencia. • Compensación para los sujetos. • Proceso de consentimiento informado y su documentación.

Si se justifica la dispensa de alguno de el los. • Protección de privacidad y confidencialidad.

UPRM IRB

CITI WEBPAGE: HTTPS://WWW.CITIPROGRAM.ORG/DEFAULT.ASP?

USE OF CITI AT UPRM

Effective January 4, 2010, NSF implements Section 7009 of the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act:

“The Director shall require that each institution that applies for financial assistance from the Foundation for science and engineering research or education describe in its grant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed research project.”

USE OF CITI AT UPRM

• All participants of grants and proposals awarded by NSF after December 2009 must comply with an RCR training plan. UPRM has chosen CITI to satisfy this NSF requirement. Currently RCR training must be completed by participants within the first two months of involvement or before project closing date, whichever is sooner.

• PIs must identify a field or area that best suits the participants (undergraduate student, graduate student or postdoctoral researcher) needs in relation to the grant.

• Instructions for using CITI can be found at http://cid.uprm.edu/Doc/PDU/Instructions to CITI RCR training.pdf.

• Questions? Contact UPRM CITI Administrator at the UPRM R&D Center’s Proposal Development Unit, Ms. Arlene Heredia, [email protected], Phone: X-5856.

CASE STUDY: DECEPTION & HUMAN SUBJECTS

When is Deception Ethically Justified in Research? Participants: To test Piliavin and Piliavin's theory of bystander intervention, the behavior of passengers was observed when an experimenter, posing as a "victim" with a cane, pretended to collapse in a moving subway car. To experimentally manipulate the "cost" of helping, in half of the conditions the victim "bled" from the mouth and in half he did not bleed.

The researchers assumed that the presence of blood increased the cost of helping because the sight of blood should arouse feelings of fear and revulsion in the typical bystander. The researchers staged approximately 42 of these incidents, each lasting approximately 3 minutes (the time between station stops)http://onlineethics.org/Topics/RespResearch/ResCases/psychology/deception.aspx


Questions

1. How would you evaluate the scientific validity and social value of this study? Did the study adequately test the researchers' hypothesis? Was it important to conduct this study in a naturalistic setting? Was it methodologically important to keep potential participants naive about the fact that a study was being conducted? Did members of society benefit from knowledge generated by the study? Did the research participants benefit from their participation in the study?

2. How would you evaluate the potential costs of the study to science, society, and those participating in the research? Could the subway riders who saw the "victim" collapse be harmed by the conduct of this experiment? Were participants exposed to any potential harm above that which they might experience in their daily lives in public places? Were there ways that the psychologists could have conducted this study differently in an attempt to minimize potential harm?


Questions

3. Was the autonomy (the right to self-determination) of research participants jeopardized in this study? Was participant privacy violated? Is informed consent necessary for naturalistic studies conducted in public settings? Could the hypothesis have been validly tested without using a deceptive research design? Are there ways to respect participant autonomy and privacy and still use deception?

4. Taking into account the investigators' dual responsibility to produce scientifically valid knowledge and to protect participants, what recommendations would you make regarding the conduct of this study if it were proposed today?

LET’S BE HAPPY

http://pbskids.org/loopscoops/happiness.html

• Justify your affinity to Clementine

• Justify your affinity to Brad or Oliver

• Which member of your team most closely has the attitude of Brad or Oliver?

http://pbskids.org/loopscoops/happiness.html

SOCIAL CONTEXT & RESPONSIBILITY

• What do people in my field do?• Who do they do it for (who hires me)?• Who benefits and who is harmed from my

work or the work of my field?• How can I advance humanitarian causes such

as social justice, equity, peace, community development, and sustainability in my work?

• What are the power structures in my field that might prevent me from doing so?

SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE

• Define important skills and knowledge necessary to approach ethical issues in research• Get to know your resources• Go to workshops about RCR• Get connections with society and surroundings• Consider different stakeholders• Be honest and professional• Moral imagination – project and sympathize• Teamwork skills and Competence

CASE STUDY: GENETIC ENGINEERING & WORLD HUNGER

You have developed an innovative genetic engineering process that increases the nutrient content of Ñame by a factor of 10, which has the potential to benefit countries such as Haiti and Somalia. The new technique limits the natural reproduction, and will need a constant supply of the “seed”. A multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation offers you a great amount of resources for you to develop your research in exchange for the exclusive rights of production, and a word of honor agreement that it will provide food assistance to communities in need.

• Identify at least 3 types of knowledge or skills, in order of relevance, that will help you frame the decision making process for this case.

• Would you accept the offer? Why?

• Devise two other alternatives.

• How does the concept of HAPPINESS relates to the case?

• 7: social, biotechnology/agriculture, economics; legal, environment, corporate• 5: could improve quality of life; but might put too

much power in corporation; skeptical to accept ‘word of honor’• 3: allow ‘natural’ generation of seeds; intellectual

property• 2: what is important is for people to get food,

corporate profits are a separate matter

REFLECTION ON COLLABORATION

• Compare Impact of level of Collaboration in each of the 4 Different Activities:1. Overview of Ethical Issues2. Plagiarism Exercise3. Happiness Video Activity4. Skills and Knowledge5. Case Study: Genetic Engineering & World Hunger

Did the level of collaboration make any difference?

QUALITIES OF THE RESPONSIBLE RESEARCHER

• Has Integrity• Technically Competent• Creative, imaginative,

and able to consider alternatives

• Cooperative• Has broad awareness• Has respect for others,

their ideas, and their work

• Understands ethics as integrated with, not separate from, overall academic pursuits

• ?• ??• ???• ????• ?????

FURTHER RESOURCES

• http://www.uprm.edu/cpshi/• onlineethics.org• cnx.org, search for “William Frey”• Ethics core• greatidea.uprm.edu• Morgan & Claypool E-book series @

biblioteca.uprm.edu >> Bases de Datos >> M

• Please take a short questionnaire and download these slides at https://moodle.uprm.edu/course/view.php?id=1530use enrollment key ‘rcr’

vamos a hacerlo bien hecho- conducta Ética y responsable en la investigación

Education

cases of plagiarism

social responsibility

disease lesion mimics

outline overview plagiarism

diseaselesion mimics

lesion mimicry

discrete disease

terminal disease