NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies

NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies Instructions

Overview

Respond to the following prompts: 

• How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
• In looking at the studies you reviewed for your PICOT question, do you feel that today’s researchers adequately protect the rights of human subjects? If not, what additional measures do you recommend?

Due Date

A 5% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline on Wednesday, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0 for any portion of the discussion not posted by that time).

NOTE: To receive credit for a week’s discussion, students may begin posting no earlier than the Sunday immediately before each week opens. Unless otherwise specified, access to most weeks begins on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. MT, and that week’s assignments are due by the next Sunday by 11:59 p.m. MT. Week 8 opens at 12:01 a.m. MT Sunday and closes at 11:59 p.m. MT Saturday.

A zero is the lowest score that a student can be assigned.

Faculty may submit any collaborative discussion posting to Turnitin in order to verify originality.

Total Points Possible: 50

Discussion Criteria

1. Application of Course Knowledge: The student’s initial post contributes unique perspectives or insights gleaned from personal experience or examples from the healthcare field. The student must accurately and fully discuss the topic for the week in addition to providing personal or professional examples. The student must completely answer the entire initial question. Initial post due by Wednesday at 11:59pm MT. You must include two resources in your initial post: one from your lesson or weekly reading and one from an outside scholarly source. 
2. Engagement in Meaningful Dialogue: The student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue.
   1. Peer Response: The student responds substantively to at least one topic-related post by a student peer. A substantive post adds content or insights or asks a question that will add to the learning experience and/or generate discussion.
      1. A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the other student’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
      1. The peer response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
      1. The peer response must occur before Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
      1. The peer response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is paraphrased and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.
   1. Faculty Response: The student responds substantively to at least one question by course faculty. The faculty question may be directed to the student, to another student, or to the entire class.
      1. A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the faculty’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
      1. The faculty response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
      1. Responses to the faculty member must occur by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
      1. This response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is paraphrased and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.
3. Integration of Evidence: The student post provides support from a minimum of one scholarly in-text citation with a matching reference AND assigned readings OR online lessons, per discussion topic per week. Two resources total and to count must be an in-text citation.
   1. What is a scholarly resource? A scholarly resource is one that comes from a professional, peer-reviewed publication (e.g., journals and government reports such as those from the FDA or CDC).
      1. Contains references for sources cited
      1. Written by a professional or scholar in the field and indicates credentials of the author(s)
      1. Is no more than 5 years old for clinical or research article
   1. What is not considered a scholarly resource?
      1. Newspaper articles and layperson literature (e.g., Readers Digest, Healthy Life Magazine, Food, and Fitness)
      1. Information from Wikipedia or any wiki
      1. Textbooks
      1. Website homepages
      1. The weekly lesson
      1. Articles in healthcare and nursing-oriented trade magazines, such as Nursing Made Incredibly Easy and RNMagazine (Source: What is a scholarly article.docx; Created 06/09 CK/CL Revised: 02/17/11, 09/02/11 nlh/clm)
   1. Can the lesson for the week be used as a scholarly source?
      1. Information from the weekly lesson can be cited in a posting; however, it is not to be the sole source used in the post.
   1. Are resources provided from CU acceptable sources (e.g., the readings for the week)?
      1. Not as a sole source within the post. The textbook and/or assigned (required) articles for the week can be used, but another outside source must be cited for full credit. Textbooks are not considered scholarly sources for the purpose of discussions.
   1. Are websites acceptable as scholarly resources for discussions?
      1. Yes, if they are documents or data cited from credible websites. Credible websites usually end in .gov or .edu; however, some .org sites that belong to professional associations (e.g., American Heart Association, National League for Nursing, American Diabetes Association) are also considered credible websites. Websites ending with .com are not to be used as scholarly resources
4. Professionalism in Communication: Essay mills – presents information in logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence, and is clearly relevant to the discussion topic. Grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate.
5. Wednesday Participation Requirement: The student provides a substantive response to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course faculty (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week.
6. Total Participation Requirement: The student provides at least three substantive posts (one to the initial question or topic, one to a student peer, and one to a faculty question) on two different days during the week.

NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies Example

According to the resources I have obtained concerning the history of ethics in research, it is evident that ethics is not a new concept. As early as 1947, during World War II, the ethical issues surrounding human subjects made headlines. This followed the research conducted by Nazi doctors on prisoners of war (Bell & Wynn, 2020). Although the study provides important findings that contributed to the literature, the risks, including deaths that were encountered, were devastating.

An investigation into this issue led to the development of the Nuremberg Code, the first of many developments that contributed to the evolution of current research ethics (Bell & Wynn, 2020).  As stated in the Nuremberg Code, any research involving human subjects requires obtaining voluntary, informed consent, as well as the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and the formulation of a proper scientific protocol that benefits humans with minimal risks. Essentially, understanding this historical concept has significantly impacted my perspective on biomedical research.

From history, it is evident that ethics refers to the standards of conduct that should be followed when dealing with human subjects in research. I have learned the basic principles and research ethics that are key when dealing with humans. As dictated by ethics, human subjects must be respected and treated with justice while upholding the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence during the research process (Sutrop et al., 2020).

Part of the respect requires obtaining informed consent and maintaining confidentiality. While obtaining informed consent is a common practice in the medical field, it is vital in research. Ethics requires researchers to inform participants of all information regarding the research before participants decide to participate (Tambornino & Lanzerath, 2020). The information should include the reason for the research, its benefits, risks, and implications of participating in the particular research.

The participant must understand all the information and be allowed to ask questions or seek clarification as needed. The participant should then be allowed, in their right mind, to decide whether to accept or decline participation without any influence or threat.  However, a third party may be used to provide consent in the case of a child or older adult with mental issues, prohibiting them from making a decision (West-McGruer, 2020). This should be done on the basis that participation in that research will yield more benefits than risks.

Additionally, ensuring confidentiality is a key concern. Participants must be assured that their contributions, including personal information, will not be shared with any other person, except the researcher, unless the participant explicitly allows it. Practices to enhance confidentiality include maintaining anonymity, storing documents in locked cabinets, and encrypting computer-based files (Tambornino & Lanzerath, 2020).

Furthermore, the principles of justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence should be upheld by ensuring that researchers maximize benefits, reduce risks, and improve the patient’s overall well-being. Finally, participants should be allowed to withdraw from the research at any time without facing any consequences. Understanding all these concepts helped me to analyze ethical issues when reviewing literature for my PICOT question.

Since my project involves studies on human beings, I evaluated the concepts of ethics as applied in various studies. I was pleased because most of the studies followed the ethical requirements. These include ensuring confidentiality, obtaining verbal and written consent, allowing participants to withdraw, serving justice, and upholding the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.

However, despite taking all measures to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of participants, some researchers collected personal information, such as demographics, or used unique identifiers and codes for participants. According to Sutrop et al. (2020), using codes or demographic features could impair confidentiality. Therefore, researchers should refrain from undertaking such activities; otherwise, they risk breaching confidentiality, which is an unethical act. 

References

Bell, K., & Wynn, L. L. (2020). Research ethics committees, ethnographers and imaginations of risk. Ethnography, 146613812098386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138120983862

Sutrop, M., Parder, M.-L., & Juurik, M. (2020). Research ethics codes and guidelines. In Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity (pp. 67–89). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_2

Tambornino, L., & Lanzerath, D. (2020). COVID-19 human challenge trials – what research ethics committees need to consider. Research Ethics, 174701612094363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120943635

West-McGruer, K. (2020). There is ‘consent’ and then there is consent: Mobilising Māori and Indigenous research ethics to problematize the Western biomedical model. Journal of Sociology (Melbourne, Vic.), 56(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319893523