what is ethics? though it has highly ethical ’10 gebote ...e4rtli_research%20ethics.pdf ·...

What is ethics?

Important bullet points (4) Definition

• Ethics as a standards of conduct that distinguish between right and

wrong, good and bad and so on • ethics as an academic discipline that studies standards of conduct • ethics as an approach to decision-making • ethics as a state of character Definition: Ethics is the systematic investigation of questions of right or wrong, good or bad. It reflects on the different moral principles and evaluates them critically • Tell us how we ought to act in a given situation (right/ wrong) • provide strong reasons for doing so

Ethics vs Religion Ethics vs Law

What is the difference, why to

distinguish?

Ethics vs. Religion Religion does advocate high ethical standards, but sometimes does not address the type of problem we are facing today. Eg the bible does not give an answer to the Stem Cell Research problem, even though it has highly ethical ’10 Gebote’. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Ethics vs. Law Law - if good - in cooperates many ethical standards. BUT: • law can deviate from what is ethical (slavery was allowed for

a long time in the USA) • law can become ethically corrupt, (totalitarian regimes) • can be a function of power alone, designed to serve the

interest of a narrow groups • law is slow to enforce standards to some new problems…

→ Ethics is knowing the difference between what we have a right to do (law) and what is right to do (ethics)

Traditional societies Vs.

Liberal societies

Traditional societies: Family and clan of elders, religious authorities and political leaders usually have a greater role than individuals in deciding, what is ethical. Liberal societies: Individuals have a great deal of freedom to decide for themselves, but are likely to be influenced by family, friends, religion, media, other sources.

Classification of ethics:

Descriptive Ethics

Prescriptive ethics - metaethics

- normative ethics - applied ethics

Descriptive ethics describes the accepted norms in a culture, society or professional group. It also describes the behaviour. IS-state Prescriptive ethics dealing with ethics/ moral reasoning → how people ought to behave. OUGHT-state • Metaethics: concerns itself with the analysis of

fundamental moral conceps eg right/ wrong, duty, … • Normative ethics: seeks to establish norms for our

behaviour (moral theory) to find acceptable views • Applied ethics: attempts to resolve general and specific

problems (Environmental ethics, research ethics, …)

What is ethics NOT?

• the same as feelings • religion • following the law • following culturally accepted norms • natural sciences

Process of Ethical Inquiry

What are the process steps?

A = Awareness B = Background C = Critical thinking → moral reasoning D = Decision making E = Evaluate

Ethics vs Moral Ethics vs Feelings

What is the difference, why to

distinguish?

Ethics vs. Moral • Morality and Moral is culturally bound. Every person has a

moral compass however, they must not all point into the same direction. Also, an individual must not necessarily follow the compass!

• Ethics is specific discipline which tries to probe the reasoning behind our moral life by critically examining and analysing the thinking which is/ could be used to justify our moral choices and actions in particular situations.

Ethics vs. Feelings • Feelings provide information for our ethical choices. Many people

feel good even though they are doing something wrong. Also, feelings often tell us that it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is much more difficult/ harder than the wrong thing.

→ never start with ‘I feel like….’


What does the step Awareness involve?

Awareness • Ethical questions involve ‘ought’ and ‘should’, problems are

always challenging • Conflicts among principles and values held by different

individuals/ groups generate difficult questions • We need to be aware of the problems and values!

→ Recognition: Is there something wrong (inter)personally, socially? Could situation, decision or conflict be damaging to people/ community? → Law: Does the issue go beyond legal or institutional concerns? How does it affect dignity, rights, hope for better life? Bsp: Questions and characteristics Scientific → what can we do with stem cells Religious/ Cultural → At what stage does the church treat life as life? Legal → Can we obtain governmental financial research for stem cell research?


Background: What kind of values do we have to consider? How are ethical values

characterized?

• Personal values • Cultural values • Ethical values (honesty, respect, ):

Instrumental (apple which is eaten) vs. Intrinsic (apple exists → it has an intrinsic value) Universalizable character. Ethical values should be correct for any culture/ background Prescriptive character. They describe why we need to protect this value. Rational justification. Reason, why we need to protect these values. Implementation through Principles and rules (Codes of Conduct)


Background: What are the limitations of

professional codes of conduct?

Limitations of professional codes: • Professional codes can be difficult to enforce • In attempting to both set standards and allow for individual moral

freedom, a code can end up as only a minimal standard • Focus: avoid research misconduct! Boundaries not to be passed…

prohibitive & protective → reduces ethics to a check list! • Problem of having a multiplicity of codes

• In many ethical dilemmas, a code gives no guidance how to act…


What is meant by Moral Dilemma ? What is meant by ethical norm ?

Moral dilemma

= outcome when ethical values conflict Norms = rule of action, a value, that manifests itself in attitudes and is expressed in concrete action


Background:

What are rules? What are principles?

Rules: usually more specific and limited in scope

Bsp: do not deliberately distort your data by eliminating outliners

Principles: more broad, general, abstract Bsp: truthfulness


Name the most important ethical principles

Honesty: Honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, publication status, research contributions& potential conflicts of interest. Don’t fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent.

Objectivity: Strive for objectivity 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.

Integrity: Act with integrity in all aspects of the research process. Carefulness: Avoid 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.

Openness: Share data, results, ideas, tools, and resources. Be open to criticism and new ideas. Confidentiality: Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication,

personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records. Respect for Colleagues: Respect your colleagues and students; avoid harming them, promote their wellbeing. Respect for Intellectual Property: Honor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. Do not use

unpublished data, methods, or results without permission. Give credit where credit is due but not where it is not. Freedom: Institutions, governments, and researchers should promote freedom of thought and inquiry. Social Responsibility: Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research,

public education, and advocacy. Efficiency: Make efficient use of human, financial, and technological resources. Education: Help to educate, mentor, and advise the next generation of scientists. Competence: Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education

and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole. Equality of Opportunity: Promote equality of opportunity for science students and colleagues; avoid

discrimination in admissions decisions, personnel decisions, and peer review decisions. Legality: Know and obey relevant laws and governmental policies. Animal Care: Show proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct

unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments. Human Subjects Protection: minimize harms and risks, maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy…


Background:

What are the basic properties that must be fulfilled by a moral theory?

• expected to be internally consistent

• preferably simple

• Should provide assistance in those dilemmas, where intuition

fails to give us a clear answer • Should generally agree with our sense of moral intuition

• Moral theories set forth principles that are abstract, timeless

and universal


Background:

What are the things that must be considered?

• Values that are affected • Norms and ethical principles that apply • Context of the dilemma (culture, society, law, history) • Codes of conduct that apply


Background:

Name the three types of normative theories.

• Virtue theories: the person and its character is important

• Duty/ deontological theories: the action is important

• Consequuentialist/ teleological theories: the person or action

doesn’t matter, as long as the outcome is ethically right.


Background:

What is meant by normative ethics?

Normative ethics: Arriving at a moral standard that regulates right and wrong conduct = ‘search for rule of proper behaviour’ As a key assumption: there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct (=a single rule or a set of principles) Bsp: Golden rule we should do to others what we would want others do to us.

Process of Ethical Inquiry Background:

Duty/ Deontological theories: John Locke – rights theory

Argumentation

John Locke - Rights Theory: He argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone’s life, health, liberty or possessions


Virtue theories: what are the main goals and which philosophers have

introduced it?

3 Goals: 1. develop and defend some conception of the ideal person 2. to develop and defend some list of virtues necessary for being a person of that type 3. to defend some view of how persons can come to possess the appropriate virtue

Philosophers: Plato (427 - 347 B.C.): Temperance, Prudence/ Wisdom, Fortitude/ Courage, Justice

Aristotele (384-322 B.C.)



What is a right?

What are the four features of a right? Positive vs. Negative right?

Right = a justified claim on others/ or against another person’s behaviour. They are justified by moral standards that most people acknowledge, but which are not necessarily codified in law.

4 features: Natural = they are not inverted or created by government Universal = they do not change from country to country Equal = rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race or handicap Inalienable = I cannot hand over my rights to another person eg by selling myself into slavery

positive rights: positive rights impose a positive duty on us - the duty actively to help a person/ to have or to do something. Bsp: negative rights: rights that protect some form of human freedom or liberty. They are a claim by one person that imposes a ‘negative’ duty on all others. The duty not to interfere with a person’s activities in a certain area. Bsp: right to privacy, right to not be killed, right for property.


Background:

Virtue theories: What are the limitations of virtue theories in

research ethics?

• Morally good persons do not always know what is morally right, despite conscientiousness and best intentions

• The individualized nature of the virtue approach may not provide objective standards that establish a moral minimum for morally acceptable conduct in research

• virtues are thus dependant upon other moral principles or

standards

• → despite these limitations, virtue ethics provides an important supplement to other analytical approaches that ignore the importance of good moral character to ethical conduct in research.



Difference between right and duty?

How do rights show in R.E.?

right and duties They are related in such a way that the rights of one person implies the duties of another person. In research ethics: the right to search for truth implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true (Einstein) Rights in R.E.: - right of human research subjects: to be treated with respect, to be able to grant/ refuse consent to participation, to be granted confidentiality, to receive a debriefing afterwards. - rights to determine authorship, ownership of intellect. property, conflict of interest - rights of animals in research


Duty/ Deontological theories:

What are the main goals and what principles apply for research ethics

Deontological normative theories take moral judgments of action as basic, and they regard the fundamental ethical task for persons as one of doing the right thing - or, perhaps more commonly, of avoiding doing the wrong thing. They guide action with a set of moral principles or moral rules, eg: Action of type X are never/ always to be performed in circumstance Y 2 Goals: 1. to formulate and to defend a particular set of moral rules 2. to develop and to defend some method of determining what to do when the relevant moral rules come into conflict Consequences for research ethics: Basic principles relevant to Research Ethics include: truthfulness, fairness, justice, respect for persons and their intellectual property, integrity



Immanuel Kant – categorical imperative:

What does it describe? What is instrumentalization?

formulated the enlightenment principle of universal respect for persons: ‘act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’, ‘act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.’ ???

Instrumentalization: the complete instrumentalisation of human beings represents a violation of their dignity and is hence always ethically inadmissible. This is the case if a human being is used solely as a means to achieve an (external) end, without being respected as an end in himself or herself at the same time.



William David Ross – Prima facie duties

Description What is a prima facie duty? How do they show in R.E.?

He argues that our duties are part of the fundamental nature of the universe. among these: Fidelity, Reparation, Gratitude, Justice, Beneficence, Self-improvement, Nonmaleficient A person will intuitively know, which of these duties is the actual duty and which is the apparent/ prima facie duty. Prima facie duty: duty that can be overridden by other, weightier competing concerns. They are not absolut! Intuition: subjective, immediate perceiption of the right way to act in a situation In research ethics: Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Justice


What is meant by plurality?

= Many theories which have different approaches to what ethics is at what ethical is. 1. the first problem is, that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific approaches 2. the second problem is, that the different approaches may not all answer the question: ‘what is ethical’ in the same way → but: each approach gives important information to determine, what is ethical under particular circumstances → there should no theory be preferred or more accepted than others. (Cohen) → this does not mean that ‘everything goes’ in ethics. In contrast, there is a remarkable overlap in practical issues (Schüklenk)


Consequentialist/ teleological theories:

Description

Main goals of the theory

Description

Consequentialist normative theories take judgement of the value of the consequences of actions as most basic. According to these theories, one’s crucial ethical task is to act so that one will bring as much as possible of whatever theory designates as most valuable.

Goals: 1. to specify and to defend some things or list of things that are good in themselves 2. to provide some techniques for measuring/ comparing quantities of these intrinsically good things 3. to defend some practical policy for those cases where one is unable to determine which of a number of alternating actions will maximize the good thing or things.

Process of Ethical Inquiry Moral reasoning

Why should we find arguments?

How do we structure an argument?

Reasons: • Arguments are a way to find out, which views are better than others • Arguments stimulate inquiry • Arguments demonstrate respect for the other ( dialogue is important)

1) Premise 1 (Empirical statement)……………………….. Animals have feelings 2) Premise 2 (Normative statement)………………………. It is wrong to hurt anyone with feelings 3) …. further premises…………………………………………. ___________________________________________ A) Conclusion………………………………………………………. Animals should not be hurt



What are the subdivisions?

Subdivisions: • Ethical egoism: action is morally right if the consequences are in favour only to the agent performing the action. • Ethical altruism: action is morally right if the consequences are in favour to all except the agent. • Ethical utilitarianism: action is morally right if the consequences are in favour to everyone.


Arguments: what are the key parts of a moral

argument?

1. Premises = group of statements, which are intended to convince us that one or more of the conclusion(s) are true Clue words: since, because, as shown by, seeing that, for the reason that, may be deduced from, may be inferred from… • Empirical statements = informing premises that talk about what is or is not the case → science, ‘therefore it can be concluded’ • Normative statements = Guiding premises that talk about what is right or wrong/ we should do or not/ what is good/ bad. 2. Conclusion = getting to the point = final decision made from all premises. Do not add new aspects in the conclusion‼! Clue words: so, hence, therefore, consequently, thus, since this is so, it follows that, it proves that, entails, implies, …. Key questions: What is being argued for? What is main idea? Are there intermediate conclusions? Clue words?



Utilitarianism

Main defenders Principles

Hedonistic and preference utilitarianism

Main defender: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill principles: utility: Our action should maximise utility for the greatest number of people (utility = heppiness) → sum utility! equality: each person is to count for one, nobody for more than one. There are no special obligations associated with roles such as those of parents… Hedonistic util.: defines happiness in terms of extent to which one experiences pleasure & avoids experiencing pain. Preference util.: define happiness in terms of the integrated satisfaction of one’s preference


Arguments: What has to be considered when

evaluating an argument?

• Does the conclusion follow logically form the premises? → The conclusion should be well related to the premises → no new aspects must be introduced in the conclusion • Are the empirical premises true? → Status of the premises • Is the general moral principle justifiable?


Arguments:

Deductive vs inductive arguments

Deductive arguments: Premises entails the conclusion → if the premises are all true, then the conclusion must be true! Bsp: All men are rational, John is a man → Therefore, John is rational Inductive arguments: Premises probabilize the conclusion → If the premises are all true, the conclusion is probably true. = Generalization, Interference to the best explanation, Arguments by analogy, Reasoning from precedent, Universalizability Bsp: Samedan has >1m snow every year. → Samedan will probably have at least 1m snow this year.


Decision making:

What are the two main approaches ?

Non-rational approaches = Obedience, Imitation, Feeling or desire, Intuition, Habit Rational approach = good ethical decision, which requires: A trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact the choice of a course of action


Arguments:

How are deductive arguments evaluated? → Validity, Soundness

Validity • If we assume that all premises are true, does the conclusion really follow from the arguments? Bsp: Valid: All whales are fish Not valid: All dogs are animals All fish are cold-blooded Some animals are cats Therefore, all whales are cold-blooded Therefore, some dogs are cats. Soundness • A sound argument = a valid argument with all premises being true! If either one of these criteria isn’t met, argument = unsound Bsp: Unsound: All whales are fish (wrong) All fish are cold-blooded (wrong)

Therefore, all whales are cold-blooded

Sound: All mammals suckle their young All whales are mammals

So, all whales suckle their young


Decision making:

2 models: top down and bottom up

Top-down models: emphasize general norms and ethical theory (principles, ideal, right, …) Problems arising from applying a specific normative theory to a case: Each approach has both strengths and weaknesses None of the approaches has been able to win universal assent There are hundreds of rival normative principles from which to choose, many of which yield opposite conclusions The usual solution/ best way: to make ethical decisions rationally = combination of all approaches that includes the best features of each consult several representative normative principles on a given issue → see where the weight of the evidence lies. Bottom-up models: emphasize moral tradition, experience, particular circumstances of a case ‘casuistry’


Arguments:

How are inductive arguments evaluated? → Validity, Soundness

Inductive Strength: Cannot be valid or not. But true premises (sound) make it more likely that the conclusion is true, but do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion → range of possibilities! Inductive strength, like deductive validity, looks at the relation between premises and conclusion. Reliability: An inductive reliable argument is an inductively strong argument with true premises. Analogies: If we conclude based on analogies, we should ask important questions about them: - What exactly are the two things which are being compared? - Are there any relevant differences between them? - Does the analogioy make sense?


Decision making:

How to properly analyse a case study

Analysis 1. Describe the moral dilemma/ Conflict of the agent → short and

complete! Do NOT use the words of feeling/ thinking… Do NOT just repeat the question, e.g. should he steel or not steel. The RIGHT way to do: Principle/ Duty/ Right X … is in conflict with ... Principle/ Right/ Duty Y. 2. Stakeholders or interested parties: list with all names and

interests (1st stakholder is usually the agent) 3. Duties and rights of the protagonist = look at and list the

actions using the second group or normative theories 4. List the Consequences oft he alternatives = outcome of options,

for the agent and all stakeholders and involved → One must not start with number 1, but can also go along 2. → 3. → 1. → 4. Weightning of the options: Looking at the whole. The RIGHT way to do: Because of… I judge… Deciding for one option


Arguments:

How can moral principles be judged true? What are possible flaws?

Moral principles: • We cannot demonstrate conclusively the truth of a moral principle or a normative premise • We can try to judge whether it can be better justified than its competitors • Four C’s: Clarity, Coherence, Consistency, Completeness Flaws: • Correlation/ Causation: A correlation has been established, if whenever we find x, we are likely to find y. But the discovery of such an association cannot, by itself, tell us that x causes y! • Necessary, sufficient conditions: to treat a necessary condition as if it were a sufficient condition • Unwarranted generalisation: to draw a conclusion on the basis of just one known case.

Integrity in scientific research

Definition What does it imply for…

…an individual … scientists

… institutions

In context of behaviour or morality, integrity is the virtue of basing actions on an internally-consistent framework of principles. Ethically, people have integrity to the extent that their actions, methods, measures and beliefs all derive from the same value system.

→ for an individual: all about personal honesty: acting according to one’s beliefs and values at all times → for scientists: individual commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility → for institution: commitment to creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct → excellence, trustworthiness, lawfulness and checking on researchers implement and live the environment created

Research Misconduct

Narrow definition What are the FFP?

Definition: Research misconduct = fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing or reviewing research or in reporting research results. This does not include honest error or differences of opinion! Fabrication: making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, processes or changing or omitting data/ results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Plagiarism: appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.

Research Misconduct

What are the principle conditions that must be fulfilled during a research misconduct

investigation?

• Hearing of the incriminated person

• Confidentiality for all parties involved in the procedure • Protection of the person making the allegation (whistle-blower) • No participation in the procedure of persons who may be baised • Documentation of the individual steps of the procedure • Possibility of appeal

Research Misconduct

What are questionable research practices?

QRP are behaviours in the grey zone, which are not strictly forbidden, but do not show good Research Practice. E.g. Inadequate Record keeping, Publishing the same data in two or more publications, changing the design etc of a study due to pressure form funding source, overlooking others flaws.

Data Management

What should be in a good lab book?

• Always indicate the date and time of the experiment • Always indicate all chemicals (including batch number and company) thoroughly. • Describe the procedure of the experiment in detail, such that anybody could 'recook' the experiment. = complete documentation (data, method(s) and alteration (for every step!!!), including failures) • write readable/ legible • Calculations and notes • include raw data properly labeled (glue/ fix them into the lab book, or make a separate folder for large data. This avoids Computer break downs.) • Name and sign the lab book (let supervisor sign as well) • Summary (intermediate conclusions) • Information of/ on samples (labeling) • Table of content (page number) • Corrections: Crossing out a wrong thing, but never, ever erase it! It must always be readable. • Use titles. Use it regularly • Use a pen, never a pencil...

Research Misconduct

What theories describe the factors leading to misconduct? (2)

Bad apple theory: Most scientists are highly ethical. Only researches who are morally corrupt, economically desperate or psychologically disturbed commit misconduct. Bad environment: Misconduct occurs because of institutional pressures, incentives (if you get the Noble price, … then you get promoted) and constraints. Such a stressful environment promotes misconduct. → It is probably a combination of both, i.e. when people who are morally weak, ignorant or insensitive are placed in a stressful environment, misconduct is the most likely to occur. Acceptation: A research institution must not allow any scientific misconduct, but protect integrity (eg protect wistelblowers)

Data Management

Categories in case of Prof. Olivier Voinnet

• Publication of invented data. FFP (Falsification, Fabrication, Plagiarism) = most severe misconducts • Publication of beautified or idealized figures. Make it look cleaner/ more convincing without affecting the overall conclusion. Willful w/o indication. • Publication of processed data including images without transparently announcing the nature of processing (image splicing, contrast processing...) • Unintended publication of erroneous images in place of the correct ones.

Research Misconduct

How should institutions deal with misconduct?

1. Inquiry: the assessment of whether the allegation has substance and if an investigation is warranted 2. Investigation: the formal development of a factual record and the examination of record leading to dismissal of case or appropriate remedies 3. Adjudication: Reviewing of recommendations and determination of appropriate corrective actions

Data Management

Ownership of Data To whom does the data produced at ETH belong?

With whom does the ETH need to share data?

• Unless otherwise agreed upon with external project partners, primary data and materials from research projects undertaken at the ETH Zurich generally remain property of the ETH Zürich.

• ETH Zurich researchers are not required to disclose the primary data and materials to nonparticipants before having carried out their own analysis, evaluation and publication, with exception of disclosure to committees.

• In every research project, after agreement with the responsible

project manager, a professor will determine, in writing, the participants who, after having left the project team or the ETH Zurich should retain access to the primary data or materials and the purposes for which they may use these data and materials

Data Management

Retention of Data

What does the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity state concerning retention of

data?

• Research Findings: Researchers should share data and findings

openly and promptly, as soon as they have had an opportunity to establish priority and ownership claims

• Data should be shared: Open data policy reflects positively on those who share and benefits science by increasing the likelihood for new insights, collaboration, reciprocal sharing.

Research involving animals

Views on the moral status of animals

Animal rights (deontological approach)

Who described the theory first? What does the theory describe?

Tom Regan Inherent value: ‘Animals possess morally important characteristics, all have inherent value. Animals have an equal right to be treated with respect, not to be used as mere resources.’ Animal right activitsts think, that eating animals would therefore go against the animals right. They are mostly vegetarians or even vegans and do not use any animal products (leather, drugs, …) Inherent value belongs equally to those who are the experiencing subjects of life. Subject of life = having beliefs, desires, perception, memory, a sense of future, emotional life together, interests, ability to initiate action, psychophysical identity over time. Animals in science: after Tom Regan → completely impossible


What are the most important questions of animal ethics?

Moral considerability: Who counts morally? Moral significance: How much do those requiring moral consideration count?



Biocentric position

What does the theory describe?

Theory All living beings/ organisms belong to the moral community Egalitarian position: Hierarchical position:



Anthropocentric position/ human dominion: Cartesian tradition and

Indirect duty view

Who described it? What is described by the theory?

Cartesian theory: René Descartes (1596 – 1650) only humans possess a mind or spirit Animals are operating without consciousness, cannot think and are more like machines → it is not morally wrong to expoit them

Indirect duty view: Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) lived entire life in Königsberg Animals are not self-conscious, they cannot judge → humans have no direct duties to animals But: how we treat an animal affects or determines how we treat other humans! It influences the behaviour one has towards other human beings. Therefore, we should behave morally towards animals in order to do the same towards other humans. → indirect duty view


Swiss legislation. How did the law evolve from 1973-2008?

• < 1973: One article in penal code

• 1973: Article animal protection in constitution → federal task • 1978: Animal protection act (Tierschutzgesetz) → ethical

responsibility, prevent animals from suffering pain, fear • 1991: Revision of animal protection act • 1992: New constitutional article (Art 120 BV) → dignity of creation • 2003: April 1st animals lost legal status of things • 2008: New Animal protection act



Animal Welfare/ Pathocentric position

Which two people described it? What is described by the theory?

Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) → opposing view of Descartes Can animals reason? Can they talk? Can they suffer? Key characteristic required for admittance into the moral universe is Sentience → Sentience = the ability to feel pleasure or pain Peter Singer (1975) Capacity for suffering is the characteristic → sentience is the only defensible boundary Preferring humans to animals would be like racism (→ speciesism) → Pathocentric position: The key characteristic required for admittance into the moral universe: sentience


Applying for animal research:

5. step in weighing of interest procedure Identification and assessment of strain

What types are there?

pain, suffering, anxiety Harm (impairment of growth, reproductive capacity, mobility, …) Major interference with the appearance Humilitation, excessive instrumentalization others


Swiss legislation: What are the 3 main laws involving animal

research?

Art 120 Non-human gene technology (1992): The Confederation shall legislate on the use of reproductive and genetic material from animals, plants and other organisms. In doing so, it shall take account of the dignity of living beings as well as the safety of human beings, animals and the environment, and shall protect the genetic diversity of animals and plant species (→ biocentric approach) Dignity is not absolute in this conception Swiss Act on Non-Human Gene Technology (1. Januar 2004) Swiss Animal Welfare Act, Art 3f: dignity: Inherent worth of the animal that has to be respected when dealing with it. If any strain imposed on the animal cannot be justified by overriding interests, this constitutes a disregard for animal’s dignity. Strain is deemed to be present in particular pain, suffering or harm is inflicted on the animal, if it is exposed to anxiety or humiliation, if there is major interference with its appearance or its abilities, or if it is excessively instrumentalised. → Dignity is defined here!



5. step in weighing of interest procedure Identification and assessment of strain

How do we categorize them?

none ( ) Procedures and actions performed on animals for experimental purposes that do not inflict pain, suffering or harm on the animals, engender fear or impair their general well-being. Bsp: Pure observational studies slight/ mild (*) Procedures and actions performed on animals for experimental purposes that case short term mild pain or harm or a mild impairment of general well-being. Bsp: to administer an anaesthesia for MRI measurements moderate (**) … that cause short-term moderate or medium to long-term mild pain, surffering or harm, short term moderate fear or short to medium term severe impairment of general well being. Bsp: Implantation of electrons in the animal’s brain large (***) … that cause medium to long-term moderate/ severe pain, medium to long-term moderate/ severe harm, long-term severe fear or impairment of general well-being. Bsp: Unplanned dying of animals with strong pain, implantation and growing of malignant tumor(s) in animals


What is the set up in ZH?



6. step in weighing of interest procedure Identification and evaluation of legitimate

interests

Put into 4 categories (because strain has to be justified by OVERRIDING legitimate interests) There are no clear definition what is of category 1, 2, 3, or 4! But there is a relative weighing of the different topics: Categories include: human/ animal health > expanding scientific knowledge > preservation and improvement of environmental conditions > protection against violation of fundamental rights > others (interests of society as a whole!)



First 4 steps in weighing of interest procedure

1. Describing the aim 2. Presentation of the facts 3. Question of suitability: Can the intended aim be achieved by

the proposed intervention? • Yes → carry out a weighing of interests • No → do not carry out intervention, no need for

a weighing of interests.

4. Question of necessity: Is the proposed intervention necessary in order to achieve the intended aim, or can the aim be achieved by means that entail less or no strain for the animal?



7. step in weighing of interest procedure Comparism: strain vs legitimate interests and

conclusion

The decisive factors: severest form of strain and the most significant interest There is no adding of all the ‘stars’ → only the severest forms will be taken into account!


There are 2 main possible principles concerning the dignity of GM animals. Which are they?

Principle 1: the integrity of the genetic make up Holmes Rolston: The organisms well being is when its individual genetic material develops to maturity. The integrity of the genetic makeup therefore prohibits the production of transgenetic animals. → production of transgenetic living being does not respect their dignity. Disadvantage: 1. Genetic reductionism → The genes are not the only thing defining a

living being. Even their environment can form their individuality 2. Damaged Genes→ according to the principle A, a person who was

born with a gene defect must not be treated to get his genes fixed. Principle 2: the uninhibited development of species-specific functions (CH) Definition: whatever changes a living beings ability to develop its species specific function goes against its dignity→ transgenetic animals do not interfere with dignity if the species specific functions can still develop! Exclusion: if the genetic interference allows no longer the species-specific functions, dignity is violated. However, it can still be justified by other morally relevant considerations → weighing of interests/ strain


List 4 specific problems which arise with GM animals!

Specific problems of the creation of GM animals Effects of changing DNA → potential suffering Numbers of surplus animals → not all animals can later be used. Increase of animal experiments → 40’000 mice at the HCI… Overall experiments are decreasing, but ↑ experiments with GM mice Relevance for humans. Is it really possible to conclude from animals what is happening in human beings?


What are the 3R? With example!

When and by whom invented?

The 3 R’s: Concept by Russell & Butch, 1958 Reduction: lowering the number of animals used to obtain information of a given amount and precision. Bsp: communication of information, design of an economical experiment. Refinement: development leading to a decrease in the occurrence of severe and inhumane procedure applied to animals Bsp: post-operative care, proper se of anesthetics and provision of sedations Replacement: scientific methods employing non-sentient material which may replace methods using conscious living beings. Bsp: tissue cultures, ue of lower organisms, mathematical/ computer models

Research involving human subjects

What happened in the following scandals?

Tuskegee syphilis study ZDV drug trieals in developing countries

Guatemala syphilis study

Tuskegee syphilis study (1932 – 1972): 400 african American males with syphilis entered the study. Even tough they were promised to receive treatement, they were left untreated. The real purpose of the study was to observe the symptoms of an ongoing syphilis disease. They were also not told, what their real disease was. They were just told to have ‘bad blood’ ZDV drug trieals in developing countries (1997): trial to determine the efficacy of several new drugs for prevention of HIV transmission from mother to child, in the hope to find a cheaper drug protocol. These new drugs were compared to placebo instead of the best proven therapeutic method of care. Guatemala syphilis study (1946 – 1948): hundreds of Guatemala prisoners, soldiers and mentally ill patients were infected with syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases. The US apologized publically in October 2010 (research funded by NIH)


List aspects, under which you would participate in a clinical trial for a new drug!

• To be able to withdraw at any time without any negative consequences • Is there an approval from the ethics committee? → information sheet (including all the following points!) → Allows me to give written informed consent! • To not cause any major health issues • To be able to see the individual results and overall results of the test and have them explained if they are complicated • get any other information about the drug (including potential risk, side effects), previous studies • That any possible method to reduce the risk of harming a human being has been done • Emergency concept • Insurance • Benefits (potential, who, …) → That my participation will bring further knowledge about the drug • Concrete procedure (method, place, …) • Reputation, expertise of personnel involved/ institution • Reward/ personal benefit


What is the Helsinki Declaration? What does it add to the Nuremberg code?

Declaration of Helsinki 1964 Issued by the World Medical Association Two additional points to the Nuremberg code:

o Submission to an independent committee o Possibility of research on kids/ other individuals

who might not be able to give their own consent Three part document: Introduction – Basic principles – Research combined with clinical care


What were the Nuremberg trials? What 10 points are included in the Nuremberg

code?

Nuremberg trials: conviction of 15 Nazi doctors, 7 Nazi doctors sentenced to death, Joseph Mengele fled to South America Nuremberg code (1949): first international codification of minimal expectations for the conduct of research with human subjects

• Voluntary Consent • Anticipate scientific benefits

• Benefits outweigh risks • Animal experiments first

• Avoid suffering • No intentional death or disability

• Protection from harm • Subject free to sop

•Qualified investigators •Investigators stop if harm occurs


What is the Belmont report? What are the key 3 points?

Belmont report (1979) Report to identify the most fundamental principles that should govern human subject studies → three points below. Respect for persons: - individuals should be treated as autonomous agents - persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection - → informed consent! Beneficence: - Obligation 1: do not harm (principle of non-maleficence) - Obligation 2: maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms - Requirement 1: benefits must appropriately be balanced with risks - Requirement 2: Prevent and remove harm, promote good Justice: distributive justice → social benefits and social burdens ought to be distributed fairly. This is of high concern for vulnerable populations, which might be exploited.


What happened in the following scandals?

Jewish chronic disease hospital cancer experiments

Willowbrook state school hepatitis experiments

Jewish chronic disease hospital cancer experiments (1963 – 1966): Dr. Chester Southam injected 22 elderly Jewish patients with live cancerous liver cells and monitored the response. Their was no consent of the patients at all. The patients were only told to be injected some cells. There was no therapeutic value for the patients at any time. Willowbrook state school hepatitis experiments (1955 – 1970): Saul Krugman investigated the effects of hepatitis among mentally disabled kids. He purposely infected additional kids and did not treat kids which were already infected. The parents were not sufficiently informed and there was no direct therapeutic benefits for the children.


informed consent

How can informed consent be justified? (2 approaches)

Reasons for why informed consent is an important principle Consequentialist reasons: informed consent increases the adherence to the protocol, ie the patients are more dedicated to stick to the planned experiments. This increases the quality of research. Informed consent gives an additional layer of risk review (by the patient itself) and is likely to foster public trust. Non-consequentialist reasons: informed consent is simply necessary when respecting a person and its autonomous decision-making.


informed consent

What are the key elements of informed consent? (4)

Elements of informed consent Information: aim of the study, methods, funding/ conflicts of interest, researcher’s institutional affiliation, andticipated benefits, potential risk and follow up of the study, discomfort that patient may entail, right to abstain from taking part in the study or withdraw from it at any time without any reprisals. Understanding Voluntariness Decision Making Capacity: consent must be given by a person who is legally (age of majority) and factually (diminished on account of age, physical or mental condition) capable of consenting.

Social responsibility

What are the 5 key principles in research ethics?

Principles: 1. Do not harm: people are free to act as they please, as long as they do not harm others 2. precautionary principle ??? what does that mean???? 3. free, voluntary, informed consent: for all activities that (may) have harmful effects to others

4. actors can be required to repair or compensate harm for activities for which the actors had not obtained the informed consent. 5. freedom of speech


informed consent

What facts/ constellations could hinder genuine informed consent?

Elements which might hinder genuine informed consent Confusion and forgetfulness Cultural barriers

Situational pressure/ implicit forms of coercion Lack of understanding/ comprehension of research details and methods Poverty may undermine voluntariness

People having an unquestioning attitude towards those in authority


What are the social responsibilities for science as a whole? (5)

Description: For an science: Social responsibilities implies, that scientists have the obligation to…

… conduct socially valuable research

… participate in public debates

… give expert testimony (if asked)

… help to make science policy

… debunk junk science


What is the moral dilemma faced when doing research with animals?

Conflict of interest: Right (Freedom of research) vs Right (of animals that dignity is respected → freeness of strain) These are equal rights in the constitution! No priority to one or the other side. We therefore must have overriding interest for doing research. This has to be evaluated in every single case!


What are the social responsibilities for the scientific community? (5)

for the scientific community as a whole… … contribute to the wealth of shared human knowledge and experience … generate and promote the use of relevant science to improve human welfare and sustained development … try to ensure the benefits and minimize the potential dangers of applications of science … support good, evidence based policy making … concern for the greater common good.


Give a definition for social responsibility

Definition: an activity or action within science and

technology is socially responsible, if it satisfies certain

ethical principles and socially irresponsible if it does

not satisfy these principles.


What are the social responsibilities for the individual scientists? (6)

for the individual scientists as a whole… … upholding the principle of universality (values of openness, equality and non-discrimination) … respect for human rights, animals and environment … Acknowledging scientific risk and uncertainty … being accountable in an advisory capacity … Communicating responsibly and honestly … placing societal benefits before the pursuit of personal profit


Why should scientists have social responsibility at all?

Taxpayers ultimately fund a lot of the university based scientific work → scientists need to work for democratic

freedom, societal welfare, equity and growth of

knowledge

Publication ethics

What do the ICMJE Guidelines state? What are problems with it?

ICMJE Guidelines (2008): In order to be listed as an author, a person must have done all of the following: Author if: - the person has a substantial contribution to conception & design; acquisition, analysis & interpretation of data - drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content - approved the final version to be published Problems:- seems overly restrictive - does little to prevent ghost and honorary authorship - No-one can know/ find out, whether the listed authors actually do meet the criteria


What does the Singapore statement on research integrity state?

Singapore statement on research integrity: researchers

and research institutions should recognize that they

have an ethical obligation to weigh societal benefits

against risks inherent in their work.

Publication ethics

What does the contributorship model state? What model is used at ETH?

Contributorship model: In order to have transparency about the authorship, all contributions should be listed for each individual author. It is usually presented at the end of the main text in the form: A contributed to conception, design, …. All authors approved the final version… → model adopted by ETH. Note: Also a person from the industry can be listed as author in this case. He or she simply has to critically review the paper. For some ETH departments, it is important to be able to list industry partners in order to assure funding.


What are the 3 stages in social responsibility?

Stage 1: to decide whether to participate in a research project and how to conduct it Stage 2: to alert society to its benefits and harms as the work progress Stage 3: to participate in discussion.

Publication ethics

What are possible strategies to prevent abuse of authorship?

Open and direct communication: ???? What is meant by that ???? Climate of inclusiveness: It is better to agree on listing one author more instead of starting unnecessary fights between collegues Written agreement: Decisions about authorship of publications should be made in the beginning of a new project.

Publication ethics

Why is publication ethics so important?

• Publication ethics is very important, since the most visible form of academic recognition and credit is authorship!

• Publication list: often serves as the most important criteria for promotion or funding decisions

• Quality over quantity: holds also in publications!

Publication ethics

What does the order of authors tell?

First author: Person who did most for the project – involving work and writing of the article - main contributor Further authors: other contributors Last author: head of the group. Mostly in a supervising role → there are concrete schemes, by which the order of the authors can be evaluated. Basically a weighing scheme. → with authorship comes always responsibility‼! Do not allow to be put on a paper which you have not read‼!

Publication ethics

What is…

duplicate submission duplicate publication

scientific salami slicing?

• Duplicate submission: A paper, which is submitted by to several

papers at the same time is usually not considered by the papers. Reasons: prevent disputes about right to publish and prevent unnecessary work of multiple peer review and editing.

• Duplicate publication: What is meant by that???? • Scientific salami slicing: What is meant by that????

Publication ethics

Peer review

What are potential limitations? (4) What cannot be done by peer review? (2)

Potential limitations: occur very infrequently • Reviewers may be based in favour of well-known researchers • Reviewers may not be qualified • Unfair review of work of direct competitors • Reviewers may take advantage of ideas in unpublished

manuscripts or grant proposals Not done by peer review:

• Detection of innovative research • Filtering out fraudulent, plagiarized, redundant publications.

Publication ethics

Peer review

What are the most important guidelines for peer review?

Guidelines for peer review

• Timely • Competent • Unbaised • Confidential • Secure • Constructive

what is ethics? though it has highly ethical ’10 gebote ...e4rtli_research%20ethics.pdf ·...

Documents