Vamos a Hacerlo Bien Hecho- Conducta Ética y Responsable en la Investigación

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

11 DE ENERO DE 2012

MARCEL CASTRO-SITIRICHE, INEL
CHRISTOPHER PAPADOPOULOS, INGE
AIDSA SANTIAGO-ROMAN, INGE

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

ETHIC DILEMMA

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

What would you do and why?

ETHIC DILEMMA

• TRAIN PROBLEM
• Other Cases:
• 5 with terminal disease, 1 healthy

What would you do and why?

ETHIC DILEMMA

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

ETHIC DILEMMA

• TRAIN PROBLEM
• 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?

Academics
“Actual” Research
(investigación real)

“re Professional
Development
Ethics “tax” & Practice
(impuesto
de ética)

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

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)

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.php
https://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 … You write …

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



Presently, the biological Currently, “the biological
significance of this lesion significance” of lesion
clear, although suggestions known, “although
In this paper we argue that response to, pathogens”
this might be the case ... (Johal et al, 1995).



Presently, the biological Currently, “the biological
significance of this lesion significance” of lesion
clear, although suggestions known, “although
In this paper we argue that response to, pathogens”
this might be the case ... (Johal et al., 1995).



Presently, the biological Several researchers are
significance of this lesion investigating the
mimicry is not significance of lesion
clear, although suggestions mimicry. Johal et al. (1995)
have been made that they argue that they may
may represent defects in represent defects in the
the plants' recognition of, or plants' recognition of, or
response to, pathogens. ... response to, pathogens.
In this paper we argue that However, other researchers
this might be the case ... (e.g., XYZ), have disputed
this.



may represent defects in indicate mutations that
the plants' recognition of, or inhibit the plants‟ ability to
response to, pathogens. ... recognize and respond to
In this paper we argue that pathogens. However, other
this might be the case ... researchers
(e.g., XYZ, 2004), have



may represent defects in indicate mutations that
the plants' recognition of, or inhibit the plants’ ability to
response to, pathogens. ... recognize and respond to
In this paper we argue that pathogens. However, other
this might be the case ... researchers
(e.g., XYZ, 2004), have

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.

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, arlene.heredia@upr.edu, 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

SUBJECTS
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?

SUBJECTS
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
• 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 • Identify at least 3 types
genetic engineering process that
increases the nutrient content of of knowledge or skills, in
Ñame by a factor of 10, which has order of
the potential to benefit countries relevance, that will
such as Haiti and Somalia. The new help you frame the
technique limits the natural
reproduction, and will need a decision making
constant supply of the “seed”. A process for this case.
multinational agricultural • Would you accept the
biotechnology corporation offers
you a great amount of resources for offer? Why?
you to develop your research in • Devise two other
exchange for the exclusive rights of alternatives.
production, and a word of honor
agreement that it will provide food • How does the concept
assistance to communities in need. 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 Issues
2. Plagiarism Exercise
3. Happiness Video Activity
4. Skills and Knowledge
5. 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=1530
use enrollment key „rcr‟

Vamos a Hacerlo Bien Hecho- Conducta Ética y Responsable en la Investigación

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Vamos a Hacerlo Bien Hecho- Conducta Ética y Responsable en la Investigación

Similar to Vamos a Hacerlo Bien Hecho- Conducta Ética y Responsable en la Investigación (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Vamos a Hacerlo Bien Hecho- Conducta Ética y Responsable en la Investigación

Editor's Notes