Learning about the history of research ethics profoundly impacted my view of biomedical research. The main reason is that research is not a sole priority, where one should strive to achieve scientific knowledge. Such measures also involve real individuals whose rights are more important than data acquisition. Important ethical questions arise in connection with the involvement of subjects in the research, who become the object of analysis (Veatch & Guidry-Grimes, 2019). The issue of the “informed consent” of people to participate in a study is rather complicated. On the one hand, respect for the individual requires the person to be aware that they are being watched or that they are playing a role in an experiment. Some areas of life are purely personal, and unauthorized interference in them is unacceptable.
On the other hand, the knowledge of informants about participation in an experiment violates the essence and purity of this experiment. In addition, in the process of work, a scientist can meet with a large number of people, and at the same time, there is a question if all of them should be informed that they are the objects of research. In such a situation, it is difficult to maintain the necessary balance, and the scientist himself has to make difficult ethical choices. However, in the scientific community, some principles have already been established. For example, one might argue that when conducting questionnaires and other forms of interviewing, people must honestly warn about the use of recording devices and how long the interview will take.
During the review process of the selected studies, there were not evident indications of inadequate protection of the rights of human subjects. The main reason is that the majority of these researchers utilized data from various registries or databases in order to derive quantitative data. However, I would recommend additional measures, where the authors must request permission from a person whose registry data is being used. I did not notice a clear explanation of consent within the articles, and it seems implausible to have a positive reply from all data points. In general, the analysis of non-compliance with ethical norms is complicated, and in some cases, it is challenging to draw a clear line between misconduct and misunderstanding. Although ethical standards are recognized by researchers, they are interpreted and applied differently in different institutions. Researchers are generally required to ensure ethical compliance during scientific research. These requirements include proper design and conduct of research, which provides for experimentation on humans or animals, and scientific misconduct. For example, the latter may consist of data falsification and plagiarism alongside environmental and safety regulations.
Compliance with copyright and intellectual property regulations and compliance with confidentiality agreements are important. Bioethics implies a commitment to a particular area that it seeks to regulate. If anyone is interested in medical research, individual experience, and knowledge in the complex world of medical practice and medical research cannot be ignored (Veatch & Guidry-Grimes, 2019). It is necessary to become familiar with the behavior of the various participants, with the legislation, with current and innovative practices. One doesn’t need to be an expert, in general, to see how conventional morality and principles work in an area where there are moral dilemmas that require informed and comprehensive answers. The conduct of biomedical research is considered illegal, unfair, immoral, and even criminal, criminally punishable action if the regulations and rules of the law are not observed. The ethical focus of medical practice and research is completely dependent on the professional competence and morality of the medical staff.
Reference
Veatch, R. M., & Guidry-Grimes, L. K. (2019). The basics of bioethics (4th ed.). Routledge.