Reference no: EM133746282 , Length: 2500 Words
Research Conduct and Ethics
Assignment: Research integrity essay
Choice of topics
A few suitable case studies are listed below. You may choose one of them as a topic for this assignment, identifying and discussing the research integrity breaches that occurred in these cases, and critically reviewing the ways in which these breaches were managed. What are some of the causal factors leading to these types of misconduct? What is the potential impact of these breaches on patients, therapeutic guidelines, on research participants (if relevant) and on public perception and trust in researchers and their findings?
Case Study 1: Bruce Murdoch - University of Queensland
Between 2011 and 2013, Murdoch conducted studies on Parkinson's Disease. Following a whistle-blower complaint, the Crime and Corruption Commission investigation found that no primary data could be located, and there was no evidence that the study had been conducted. In addition, it was determined that public and private research funding was fraudulently applied for and spent.
Case Study 2: Hwang Woo Suk - Seoul National University
This matter centred around two publications in 2004 and 2005 on stem cell research. The results of these results studies were determined to be fabricated and fraudulent, and the eggs donated for the experiments that were conducted were collected in an unethical way.
Case Study 3: Craig Grimes - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
Over the course of this incident, Grimes secured millions of dollars of research funds to conduct clinical research including $1.2 million from the NIH to research blood gas measurement as a means of detecting a childhood disease. Grimes was charged with wire fraud, money laundering and making false statements to secure grants
Case Study 4: Merck & Co
In a series of papers written on the value and safety of Merck's new drug Vioxx, it was discovered that critical information on the safety of the drug was missing, authors did not declare conflicts of interests for associations with Merck, and several papers were ghost-written by Merck staff.
Case Study 5: Marc Hauser - Harvard
Hauser was a leader in the field of Animal Cognition research. One of the cases of misconduct was in relation to an experiment conducted in monkeys where the scientific methodology was not followed as it was recorded in paper. In another instance the statistical analysis could not be reconstructed to produce the same results, and in another case the coding in an experiment was inconsistent.
Case Study 6: Bengu Sezen - Columbia University
After a ten year period of falsifying, fabricating and in one instance plagiarising data, Sezen was found guilty of committing 20 acts of research misconduct.
Case Study 7: Wei-Hock Soon - Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Over the last decade Soon accepted more than $1.2 million in funds from the fossil-fuel industry and published claims that variations in the sun's energy can largely explain recent global warming. However, Soon failed to disclose this as a conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.
1. Title of chosen topic
The title of your essay should clearly delineate the topic you have chosen to review. Even if you choose one of the examples provided there are many different ethical / integrity issues raised by each of them that could be discussed, so the title of your essay should make it clear to the marker which issues raised by the articles are being reviewed in your essay.
2. Comprehensive overview of topic
The introductory paragraphs of your essay should 'set the scene' for your review, providing a concise but comprehensive summary of the relevant facts on both sides of the topic. The points should be presented in a logical order, and any 'grey' areas, controversial ethical / integrity topics or gaps in current knowledge should be identified. Each of the points you are making should be clearly referenced. Even if your own opinion is weighted on one side or other of the topic you have chosen, you should provide an unbiased view of all the issues under discussion.
3. Critical review and weighting of evidence
You should then provide a critical but balanced appraisal of the points raised, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in the evidence you have cited. Clear conclusions should then be stated towards the end of the essay. Individual opinions should be supported by facts included in the other sections of the essay.