Index of the contents of the NBAC report Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants Report, Recommendations, and Commissioned Papers.
John C. Fletcher, University of Virginia. This paper examines the location of the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its effects on the mission of the Office.
Janlori Goldman and Angela Choy Georgetown University. This paper describes how the public's fear and anxiety over the loss of privacy and confidentiality can threaten the research initiatives meant to benefit them. The federal government, researchers, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and research institutions will need to work together to provide strong privacy and confidentiality protections to build public trust and encourage continued participation in research.
C.K. Gunsalus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This paper was commissioned to examine whether NBAC should recommend unifying federal oversight of federal and private human subjects research under a single government office such as the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR).
Erica Heath, Independent Review Consulting, Inc. NBAC has requested information about the philosophical and practical issues related to the role of independent institutional review boards (IRBs) in the current medical research community. This paper provides a working definition of independent IRBs, describes their role within a broader framework of protections for human subjects and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of independent IRBs.
The Scenario presents a situation where the researchers realize they are missing a major link to prove their thesis after its presentation was approved. The ethical issue is how the researchers are obligated to report this missing link.
In this scenario, a graduate student realizes that he/she is given credit and coauthorship of a paper. An ethical problem arises when the student is not familiar with the theoretical background of a section of the paper.
This scenario presents a situation where a graduate student realizes that the professor made up experimental results which were not accurate. The student had also written papers based on the professor's results adding to the dilemma.
In the essay, Dr. Whitbeck outlines an "agent-centered" approach to learning ethics. The central aim is to prepare students to act wisely and responsibly when faced with moral problems. The methods characteristic of this approach are suitable for integrating material on professional and research ethics into technical courses, as well as for free-standing ethics courses. Science and Engineering Ethics (1995). Other keywords for this: pedagogy; the use of cases in teaching; active learning; design process; role playing.
Other keywords for this: professional responsibility; ethical codes and guidelines from professional societies; professional societies; performance review.
Relevant Literature on this Topic
John M. Staudenmeier, sj, The Politics and Ethics of Engineering
In press with pilot-project version for use in NSF-supported Greenfield Coalition ethics component at Focus: Hope, Detroit, MI. Other keywords for this: ethics and prudence; lying, deception; self-deception; moral ambiguity; pedagogy and the use of cases in teaching; incompetent superiors; professional responsibility; consulting relationships; professional societies; ethics support; workplace relationships; communication; research and cultural diversity; research misconduct; whistleblowing; correcting errors in databases.