human research ethics committee main concerns

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Research Ethics

On this page  , principles of scholarly freedom and scholarly responsibility, benefits and harms of research, animal research, race, ethnicity and racism, sex, gender (identity/presentation), and sexual orientation, studies involving vulnerable groups, publishing images from human research participants, clinical trials, tumor marker prognostic studies, human biospecimens, human transplantation studies.

• Studies involving human embryos, gametes and stem cells

Dual use research of concern

Researchers should be free to pursue lines of inquiry and the communication of knowledge and ideas without fear of repression or censorship. At the same time, they have the ethical obligation to uphold intellectual integrity and avoid preventable harms that may arise in the course of research or its communication.

Research should respect the dignity and rights of human research participants; of individuals or groups connected either with the research participants or the research topic; and of the communities in which research is carried out. Research should also respect the rights of non-human life, tangible and intangible heritage, natural resources, and the environment.

Harms can arise as a direct result of the conduct of research – for instance, injury to human participants in the course of participating in a research project; unnecessary suffering of non-human animals as a result of experimentation; material compromise of tangible heritage; ecosystem disruption etc. Harms can also arise indirectly, as a result of the publication of a research project or a piece of scholarly communication – for instance, stigmatization of a vulnerable human group or potential use of the results of research for unintended purposes (e.g., public policies that undermine human rights or misuse of information to threaten public health).

Non-maleficence and beneficence are two fundamental principles in research ethics requiring the maximization of benefits and minimization of potential harms. These principles form a core part of general frameworks for the ethical conduct of research across the sciences and humanities (for example,  The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki ;  The Belmont Report ; the  International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans ;  Ethics in Social Science and Humanities ).

Advancing knowledge and understanding is a public good and, as such, a key benefit of research, even when the research in question does not have an obvious, immediate, or direct application. Although the pursuit of knowledge is a fundamental public good, considerations of harm can occasionally supersede the goal of seeking or sharing new knowledge, and a decision not to undertake or not to publish a project may be warranted. 

Consideration of risks and benefits (above and beyond any institutional ethics review) underlies the editorial process of all forms of scholarly communication in our publications. Editors consider harms that might result from the publication of a piece of scholarly communication, may seek external guidance on such potential risks of harm as part of the editorial process, and in cases of substantial risk of harm that outweighs any potential benefits, may decline publication (or correct, retract, remove or otherwise amend already published content).

Top of page ⤴

Research involving animals or humans

All authors of life and social sciences manuscripts complete an  editorial policy checklist  to verify their compliance with the Nature Portfolio journals’ editorial policies.

For primary research manuscripts in the Nature Portfolio journals reporting experiments on live vertebrates and/or higher invertebrates, the corresponding author must confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The manuscript must include a statement identifying the institutional and/or licensing committee approving the experiments, including any relevant details. Sex and other characteristics of animals that may influence results must be described. Details of housing and husbandry must be included where they are likely to influence experimental results. We recommend following the ARRIVE reporting guidelines when documenting animal studies ( PLoS Bio 8(6), e1000412,2010 ). We also recommend consulting the  American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (2020) , as a comprehensive resource for guidance on veterinary best practice for the anesthesia and euthanasia of animals. 

Research with human participants, their data or biological material Human participants research

Research involving human research participants must have been performed in accordance with the  Declaration of Helsinki  . Authors must identify the ethics committee approving the research, including the name and reference number of the committee in submitted manuscripts. If the study has been granted exemption from requiring ethics approval, details of the committee granting exemption should be included in the manuscript. Manuscripts must also include a statement affirming that informed consent was obtained from all human research participants.

Research on human populations (including reporting standards)

For studies involving humans categorized by race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability, socio-economic status, or other socially constructed or socially relevant groupings, authors should:

Explicitly describe their methods of categorizing human populations

Define categories in as much detail as the study protocol allows

Justify their choices of definitions and categories, including for example whether any rules of categorization were required by their funding agency

Explain whether (and if so, how) they controlled for confounding variables in their analyses

Additionally, we require that all content submitted for publication be respectful of the dignity and rights of individuals and human groups. Researchers are asked to carefully consider the potential implications (including inadvertent consequences) of research on human groups defined by attributes of race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability or other status, to be reflective of their authorial perspective if not part of the group under study, and contextualise their findings to minimize as much as possible potential misuse or risks of harm to the studied groups in the public sphere. 

Finally, authors should use inclusive, respectful, non-stigmatizing language in their submitted manuscripts. Authors should ensure that writing is free from stereotypes or cultural assumptions. We recommend avoiding the use of descriptors that refer to attributes such as race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability or other group descriptors unless they are relevant. We advise that authors writing in English follow the guidance on  bias-free language  provided by the American Psychological Association when preparing their manuscripts for submission. 

Regardless of content type (research, review or opinion) and, for research, regardless of whether a research project was reviewed and approved by an appropriate institutional ethics committee, editors reserve the right to request modifications to (or correct or otherwise amend post-publication), and in severe cases refuse publication of (or retract post-publication):

• Content that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability, or other socially constructed or socially relevant groupings (hereafter referred to as socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings).
• Content that undermines - or could reasonably be perceived to undermine - the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings.
• Content that includes text or images that directly or indirectly disparage a person or group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings.
• Submissions that embody singular, privileged perspectives, which are exclusionary of a diversity of voices in relation to socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings, and which purport such perspectives to be generalisable and/or assumed. 

Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs. Humans do not have biological races, at least based on modern biological criteria for the identification of geographical races or subspecies.

Studies that use the constructs of race and/or ethnicity should explicitly motivate their use. Race/ethnicity should not be used as proxies for other variables – for example, socioeconomic status or income. For studies involving data collected from human participants, researchers should explain:

who provided the classification terms (the participants, the researchers or third parties);

what the classification terms are;

how racial/ethnic identity was determined (by the participants, the researchers or third parties).

This information should be provided in the Methods section of your manuscript and in the Reporting Summary . 

Biomedical studies should not conflate genetic ancestry (a biological construct) and race/ethnicity (sociopolitical constructs): although race/ethnicity are important constructs for the study of disparities in health outcomes and health care, empirically established genetic ancestry is the appropriate construct for the study of the biological aetiology of diseases or differences in treatment response. If race/ethnicity are used in the context of disease aetiology due to the unavailability of genetic ancestry data, this should be done with caution and clarification. 

Racism is scientifically unfounded and ethically untenable. Editors reserve the right to request modifications to (or correct or otherwise amend post-publication), and in severe cases refuse publication of (or retract post-publication), racist content. Editors use the guiding criteria I-IV set out in the section Research on human populations (see above) to identify content that potentially undermines the equal dignity and rights of humans of all races/ethnicities. 

Researchers are encouraged to follow the  ‘Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER – guidelines’  and to include sex and gender considerations where relevant (overview can be found  here ). We recommend consulting the full guidelines when designing research studies and before submission. These guidelines apply to studies involving humans, vertebrate animals and cell lines.

Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms.  

The following recommendations and requirements (adapted from the SAGER guidelines) will apply to studies under consideration at Nature journals (including  Nature  &  Nature Communications ), Communications Journals and Nature Partner Journals involving human participants and vertebrate animals, where relevant to the topic of study. From June 2022 onwards,  Nature Cancer ,  Nature Communications ,  Nature Medicine  and  Nature Metabolism  will introduce a pilot actively encouraging authors to report on points (i)-(iii) below. We also urge responsible communication of research findings on sex and gender differences so as to avoid inadvertent perpetuation of harmful gender stereotypes.

i. Title and/or abstract should indicate when the findings apply to only one sex or gender

ii. describe in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary whether sex and gender were considered in the study design, whether sex and/or gender of participants was determined based on self-report or assigned (and methodology used).

iii. data should be reported disaggregated for sex and gender where this information has been collected and consent has been obtained for reporting and sharing individual-level data; disaggregated numbers for individual experiments must be provided in the source data as appropriate whereas overall numbers may be provided in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary.

iv. if sex- and gender-based analyses have been performed a priori, results should be reported regardless of positive or negative outcome. Authors should refrain from conducting post hoc sex- and gender-based analysis if the study design is insufficient (for example, low sample size) to enable meaningful conclusions.

v. If no sex- and gender-based analyses have been performed, authors should justify reasons for lack of analysis in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary.

Working definitions (adopted/adapted from the SAGER guidelines and other sources):

Sex  – refers to currently understood biological differences between females and males, including chromosomes, sex organs, and endogenous hormonal profiles. Sex is usually categorized as female or male, although there is variation in the biological attributes that constitute sex.

Gender  – refers to socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviours which occur in a historical and cultural context and vary across societies and over time. Gender is usually incorrectly conceptualized as a binary (man / woman or feminine/masculine) factor. In reality, there is a spectrum of gender identities and expressions defining how individuals identify themselves and express their gender 

Gender identity  – an individual’s conception of self as being a man, woman, masculine, feminine, nonbinary, ambivalent, etc., based in part on physical, psychological and social factors. It is the internal experience of a gender role. There is a broad range of gender identities including, but not limited to, transgender, gender-queer, gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, genderless, agender, nongender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and cisgender 

Gender presentation  – how a person publicly expresses or presents their gender identity. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronouns are also common ways of expressing gender. Others perceive a person’s gender through these attributes. Another term is “gender expression.”

“Gender” refers to a set of cultural norms and expectations and not a “biologically defined variable”. Such norms are not fixed but evolve across time and space. As such, definitions will require frequent revisiting, as the exercise of defining gender (and sexuality) is under constant flux and evolution, as is the area of study in itself.

Researchers are encouraged to promote equality between men and women in their academic research which by nature should be grounded on the recognition of merit, competences and creativity, regardless of any other personal attributes or orientation.

Sexist, misogynistic and/or anti-LGBTQ+ content is ethically objectionable. Regardless of content type (research, review or opinion) and, for research, regardless of whether a research project was reviewed and approved by appropriate ethics specialists, editors may raise with the authors concerns regarding potentially sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+ assumptions, implications or speech in their submission; engage external ethics experts to provide input on such issues as part of the peer review process; or request modifications to (or correct or otherwise amend post-publication), and in severe cases refuse publication of (or retract post-publication) sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+ content, using the guiding criteria I-IV in the section  Research on human populations  (see above).

For manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups where there is the potential for coercion or where consent may not have been fully informed, extra care will be taken by the editor. The manuscript may be referred to an internal editorial oversight group for further scrutiny. Consent must be obtained for all forms of personally identifiable data including biomedical, clinical, and biometric data. Documentary evidence of consent must be supplied if requested.

When publishing identifiable images from human research participants in Nature Portfolio journals, authors include a statement in the published paper affirming that they have obtained informed consent for publication of the images. All reasonable measures must be taken to protect patient anonymity. Black bars over the eyes are not acceptable means of anonymization.  In certain cases, we may insist upon obtaining evidence of informed consent from authors. Images without appropriate consent will be removed from publication.

All interventional trials must be registered before enrollment of the first participant. Trial registration records must be available in a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( ICTRP ), in  ClinicalTrials.gov , or in any publicly accessible database that meets the minimum  24-item trial registration dataset , including the ISRCTN registry, which is administered and published by BMC (BMC is part of Springer Nature).

The trial number must be clearly indicated in the abstract and methods section of the manuscript. 

Authors reporting phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials should refer to the  CONSORT Statement  for recommendations to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trial findings. Reports that do not conform to the CONSORT guidelines may need to be revised before formal review.

Authors reporting tumor markers prognostic studies are encouraged to follow the  REMARK  guidelines for complete and transparent reporting.

For describing human biospecimens, we recommend referring to the BRISQ reporting guidelines (Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality) and ensuring at least Tier 1 characteristics are provided ( doi: 10.1002/cncy.20147 ).

Authors must also include a statement in their manuscript attesting that no organs/tissues were procured from prisoners and providing details of the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) via which organs/tissues were procured while taking care to not violate privacy of donors. For retrospective transplantation studies, authors must include a testament confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants or that the need for informed consent was waived by the ethics committee/institutional review board.

Studies involving human embryos, gametes and stem cells 

Manuscripts that report experiments involving the use of human embryos and gametes, human embryonic stem cells and related materials, and clinical applications of stem cells must include confirmation that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

The manuscript must include an ethics statement identifying the institutional and/or licensing committees approving the experiments and describing any relevant details. The ethics statement must also confirm that informed consent was obtained from all recipients and/or donors of cells or tissues, where necessary, and describe the conditions of donation of materials for research, such as human embryos or gametes. Copies of approval and redacted consent documents may be requested by the editors.

We encourage authors to follow the principles laid out in the  2016 ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Applications of Stem Cells . Editors are guided by these principles in their evaluation of the ethical and regulatory aspects of the reported research.  When appropriate, ethical and regulatory advice is sought in parallel with the scientific peer review process.

In deciding whether to publish papers describing modifications of the human germline, we are guided by safety considerations, compliance with applicable regulations, as well as the status of the societal debate on the implications of such modifications for future generations. We have established an editorial monitoring group to oversee the consideration of these concerns. (The monitoring group includes the Editor-in-Chief of Nature Portfolio publications, the Nature Editorial Director, the Head of Editorial Policy, Nature Portfolio Journals and the Executive Editor, Life Sciences.) As always, the decision whether to publish a paper is the responsibility of the Chief Editor of the Nature Portfolio journal concerned.

Nature Portfolio journals' editorials:

• Authors will be prompted to provide details on how sex and gender were considered in study design. Nature. Nature raises the bar on sex and gender reporting in research , May 2022
• Nature editorials formalize ethics standards for human embryo and stem-cell papers. Nature Announcement: stem cell policy, 2 May 2018 
• Some cells have a remarkable capacity to organize into tissue-like structures in vitro. As methods to enable self-organization improve, ethical aspects of some of these experiments will need to be considered. Nature Methods. Do we need an ethics of self-organizing tissue? October 2015.
• Discussion and regulation of genetic alterations in human germ cells and embryos is urgently needed. Nature Medicine. Germline editing: time for discussion, April 2015.
• Ethical and scientific concerns require continued debate before mitochondrial replacement can reach the clinic. Nature Medicine. Mitochondrial manipulations, May 2014.
• Scientists who screen the genes of volunteers for research should tell participants if they find information relevant to their health. Nature. Incidental benefits , 22 March 2012.
• Germany must do more to encourage dialogue on animal experimentation. Nature. Animal talk, 27 October 2011.
• Researchers should contribute to a US analysis of the case for chimpanzee research. Nature. Great ape debate , 16 June 2011.
• Researchers and activists alike benefit from dialogue—and a clear line between legal and illegal acts. Nature. An act of distinction , 22 July 2010.
• The successful transplantation of a synthesized genome highlights unresolved ethical and security issues posed by synthetic biology. Nature. Challenges of our own making, 27 May 2010.
• Higher peer-review scrutiny applied to reports making strong claims or where there are unusual ethical concerns. Nature. Replicator review , 22 November 2007.
• Researchers who work with animals should join the discussion on animal experimentation. Nature. An open debate , 14 December 2006.
• Dialogue about animal research between scientists and the public is essential for research. Nature Genetics. Animal research and the search for understanding , May 2006.
• In the wake of the Hwang scandal, journals have been reviewing their refereeing procedures. Nature. Standards for papers on cloning , 19 January 2006.
• Any changes in animal experimentation should occur as a result of dialogue between the public, scientists and legislators. Nature Methods. Of guinea pigs and men , October 2005.

Some manuscripts provide information that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat to public health, safety or security, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, or the environment. For such information to be published, the benefit to the research community, society, or to public health, must outweigh any risks. We reserve the right to take expert advice in cases where we believe that concerns may arise, and we may require a manuscript to undergo peer review specifically to assess the dual use risk. Where the risk of misuse outweighs any potential benefit, publication is declined; published content may be corrected, retracted or removed.

Researchers are expected to comply with their institutional and funder’s requirements, as well as any national regulations. They should be aware of dual-use concerns related to their work and take steps to minimize misuse of their research. Such concerns include, but are not limited to, biosecurity, nuclear and chemical threats. Where relevant regulations exist, authors should disclose whether their study is subject to consideration as dual use research of concern; if it is, the manuscript should report the authority granting approval and reference number for the regulatory approval. When the study reports material that can be harmful outside the laboratory context, the manuscript should describe appropriate containment (e.g. biosafety) procedures.

Authors of any paper describing agents or technologies whose misuse may pose a risk must complete the dual use research of concern section of the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary. This provides an opportunity not only to highlight potential hazards, but also to explain the precautions that have been taken and the benefits of publishing the research. The Reporting Summary is made available to editors, reviewers and expert advisors during manuscript assessment, and is published with all accepted manuscripts.

We have established an editorial monitoring group to oversee the consideration of papers with biosecurity concerns. The monitoring group includes the Editor-in-Chief of Nature Portfolio publications, the Head of Editorial Policy, Nature Portfolio and the Nature Portfolio Editorial Director and it is responsible for maintaining a network of advisors on biosecurity issues.

We recognize the widespread view that openness in science helps to alert society to potential threats and to defend against them, and we anticipate that only very rarely will the risks be perceived as outweighing the benefits of publishing a paper that has otherwise been deemed appropriate for publication.

• Imperfect global biosafety standards and a threat to researchers' motivations from biosecurity concerns are among the significant risks in current flu research. Nature. Publishing risky research , May 2012.
• Frank debate is needed about the balance between beneficial and detrimental uses of research. Scientists must be the first to open discussions. Nature. For better or worse , April 2012.
• Although more debate is needed, the benefits of publishing sensitive data outweigh the risks that have so far been made public. Nature. Flu papers warrant full publication , February 2012.
• Secure virus stocks in the United States and Russia may still prove useful and should not be destroyed. A political compromise is the best way to make that happen. Nature. Smallpox should be saved , January 2011.
• The US Department of Homeland Security should not be put in charge of biodefence research. Nature. Containing risk , October 2009.
• The fight against agricultural diseases in the United States has been boosted by fresh funds and a national monitoring network. But these advances are being undermined by inflexible bureaucracy. Nature. Growing pains , March 2008.
• A key advisory committee is helping the scientific community act more responsibly when conducting and publishing biological research that could carry security risks. Nature. Towards better biosecurity , April 2006.
• Only biologists can effectively police the misuse of biological agents. Nature. Network of concern , February 2006.
• Biologists may soon have little option but to sign up to codes of conduct. Nature. Rules of engagement, July 2005.
• Negotiations over a sensitive scientific publication that could be misused by bioterrorists highlight trouble ahead unless appropriate guidelines are developed. Nature. Risks and benefits of dual-use research , June 2005.
• Is a consensus building on where to draw some lines concerning benefit to the public versus the risk of misuse? Nature Immunology. Biosecurity with 'bio-sense' , December 2004.
• Communicating important technological advances responsibly, relying on editorial procedures established to identify and debate potential security issues. Nature Methods. The challenge of responsible methods, February 2004.
• The importance of balancing the free flow of scientific information with security concerns. Nature Immunology. Dealing with potential dangers , March 2003.
• Scientific openness and security as related to the publication process. Nature. Statement on the consideration of biodefence and biosecurity , February 2003.
• Scientific freedom must not be undermined for the sake of political expediency. Nature Medicine. Freedom of information , September 2002.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics pp 650–656 Cite as

Committees: Research Ethics Committees

• Ana Borovecki 2  
• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2022

146 Accesses

Research ethics committees have become a permanent fixture when it comes to ethics of research. They are essential part of quality control of research protocol, and their existence and work are thoroughly described in all important international documents dealing with research ethics issues. In this contribution history, development and different types of research ethics committees are discussed. The functions, structure, and locale of research ethics committees are also addressed. The global dimension of the work of research ethics committees is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Borovecki, A., ten Have, H., & Oreskovic, S. (2009). Ethics committees in Croatia: Studies in bioethics . Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

Google Scholar  

Bouëssau, M. S., et al. (2009). Research ethics committees: Basic concepts for capacity building . Geneva: WHO.

Glasa, J. (Ed.). (2000). Ethics committees in central and Eastern Europe . Bratislava: Institute of Medical Ethics and Bioethics.

Huriet, C. (2009). Article 19: ethics committees. In H. A. M. J. ten Have & S. J. Michele (Eds.), The UNESCO universal declaration on bioethics and human rights background principles and application (pp. 265–270). Paris: UNESCO.

Jonsen, A. R., Veatch, R. M., & le Roy, W. (1998). Source book in bioethics. A documentary history . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Levine, R. J. (2004). Research ethics committees. In W. T. Reich (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of bioethics (Vol. IV, pp. 2311–2316). New York, NY: Macmillan Simon and Schuster.

ten Have, H. (2005). Establishing bioethics committees guide No. 1 (pp. 40–52). Paris: UNESCO.

Further Readings

Amdur, R., & Bankert, E. A. (2011). Institutional review board: Member handbook (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Emanuel, E. J., et al. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 541–588). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism. Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009 . Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Andrija Stampar School of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

Ana Borovecki

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Borovecki .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for Healthcare Ethics, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Henk ten Have

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Borovecki, A. (2016). Committees: Research Ethics Committees. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_104

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_104

Published : 19 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-09482-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-09483-0

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Quick links

• Find funding
• Find publications
• News centre
• Outcomes of funding rounds
• Sapphire Login
• Publications

Challenging ethical issues in contemporary research

Human Ethics Committees have a difficult and sometimes controversial role in guiding the Australian research community’s work with people. Challenging ethical issues in contemporary research on human beings focuses on some of the most challenging ethical issues using case studies and through discussions.

Publication Data

Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) play a central role in the Australian system of ethical oversight of research involving humans. HRECs review research proposals involving human participants to ensure that they are ethically acceptable and in accordance with relevant standards and guidelines. HRECs are usually established by organisations (public, not-for-profit or private) which conduct research involving humans. Universities and hospitals are the most common of these organisations. The quality of Australia’s health and medical research effort is recognised worldwide. Human Research Ethics Committees continue to play a key role in ensuring that such research meets the highest ethical standards.

Research often generates ethical dilemmas in which it is difficult to reach agreement on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. The report illustrates these complexities through examining ten specific research proposals, and the discussions and considerations that led to a decision on whether or not the research proposals should proceed.

The major ethical dilemmas faced by committee members continue to centre on issues of consent, patient safety and welfare, privacy and disclosure, and the scientific merit of research proposals. The issues are getting more complex as medical science opens up possibilities that have not previously existed, and the breadth of research widens to include more behavioural, attitudinal and sociological components.

Related resources

• National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2023

Funding rules involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

• Ideas Grants 2022 Peer reviewer briefing webinar introductions and presentation
• Indigenous Research Excellence Criteria video transcript
• Funding agreement and deed of agreement
• Institution approvals  
• Institutional Annual Compliance Report 
• Vary your grant
• Financial reporting
• Progress, final and additional reporting
• Direct Research Cost Guidelines
• Previous Personnel Support Package rates
• Previous Salary Support Package rates
• Institutional approvals and grant conditions
• Funding Agreement
• Financial Reports
• Scientific reporting and milestones
• Direct Research Costs and Personnel and Salary Support Packages
• Eligibility
• Peer review
• Research funding data
• Analysis of Australian health and medical research publications
• Medical Research Future Fund
• International Collaborative Health Research Funding
• Funding calendar
• Working together to support research
• Statements of Expectations
• Targeted Calls for Research
• Capacity and capability building and strengthening
• Health Advice and Publications
• Health effects of water fluoridation
• Preventing infection
• How NHMRC develops public health guidelines
• Complementary medicines
• Electronic cigarettes
• Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
• Lead blood levels
• Recreational Water Quality Advisory Committee
• Australian Guidelines to Reduce Health Risks from Drinking Alcohol - Public submissions
• Genomics resources for clinicians and researchers
• Vitamin K for newborns
• Guidelines for Guidelines
• COVID-19 impacts
• Clinical trials reform
• Determining whether an embryo model is regulated by the ERLC
• Information for applicants
• Information for Licence Holders
• Mitochondrial Donation Licensing Scheme
• Training and Quality Assurance activities
• Import and export of cell lines
• Database of Licences issued
• Training and Quality Assurance
• Use of animals in NHMRC funded research
• The Human Research Ethics Applications (HREA)
• Ethical issues and further resources
• National Certification Scheme
• Human research ethics committees
• Clinical ethics
• Ethical guidelines for Assisted Reproductive Technology
• Ethical guidelines for research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
• NHMRC ethical guidelines on organ and tissue donation and transplantation
• Guideline development
• International engagement
• Research quality
• Research translation
• Research impact
• Dementia research
• NHMRC Special Initiative in Mental Health
• NHMRC’s role in addressing health implications of environmental change
• Submission of Targeted Calls for Research online pathway
• NHMRC health priorities 2021–2024
• Framework for Identifying and Prioritising Targeted Calls for Research
• Targeted Calls for Research Prioritisation Criteria Rubric
• Guide for Proposing Targeted Calls for Research
• Administering Institution Policy
• NHMRC Gender Equity Strategy 2022-2025
• Statement on sex and gender in health and medical research
• Structural priority funding and gender equity
• Accountability and reporting
• Fifteenth edition
• Fourteenth edition
• Ten of the Best Archive
• Ten of the Best
• 2022 Research Excellence Awards
• 2023 Research Excellence Awards
• Health Innovation Advisory Committee 2015-2018
• Legislative basis to NHMRC
• Senior executive and leadership team
• 2024–2027 Triennium Nominations: Embryo Research Licensing Committee
• Indigenous Research Ethics Guidelines Review Working Committee
• Natural Therapies Working Committee
• Probity Event - Additional Guidance
• NHMRC Complaints Policy
• Temporary Employment Register
• Working at NHMRC
• How we select our people
• Indigenous internship program
• Freedom of information
• Child Safe Policy
• Annual reports and corporate plans
• Consumer and community engagement
• About the review
• Consumer Statement review
• Consumer and community representative involvement in the peer review process of Targeted Calls for Research

Ethical Considerations In Psychology Research

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Ethics refers to the correct rules of conduct necessary when carrying out research. We have a moral responsibility to protect research participants from harm.

However important the issue under investigation, psychologists must remember that they have a duty to respect the rights and dignity of research participants. This means that they must abide by certain moral principles and rules of conduct.

What are Ethical Guidelines?

In Britain, ethical guidelines for research are published by the British Psychological Society, and in America, by the American Psychological Association. The purpose of these codes of conduct is to protect research participants, the reputation of psychology, and psychologists themselves.

Moral issues rarely yield a simple, unambiguous, right or wrong answer. It is, therefore, often a matter of judgment whether the research is justified or not.

For example, it might be that a study causes psychological or physical discomfort to participants; maybe they suffer pain or perhaps even come to serious harm.

On the other hand, the investigation could lead to discoveries that benefit the participants themselves or even have the potential to increase the sum of human happiness.

Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984) also discuss the potential costs of failing to carry out certain research. Who is to weigh up these costs and benefits? Who is to judge whether the ends justify the means?

Finally, if you are ever in doubt as to whether research is ethical or not, it is worthwhile remembering that if there is a conflict of interest between the participants and the researcher, it is the interests of the subjects that should take priority.

Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented. All UK research requires ethical approval by one or more of the following:

• Department Ethics Committee (DEC) : for most routine research.
• Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) : for non-routine research.
• External Ethics Committee (EEC) : for research that s externally regulated (e.g., NHS research).

Committees review proposals to assess if the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These committees may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) and American Psychological Association (APA) have issued a code of ethics in psychology that provides guidelines for conducting research.  Some of the more important ethical issues are as follows:

Informed Consent

Before the study begins, the researcher must outline to the participants what the research is about and then ask for their consent (i.e., permission) to participate.

An adult (18 years +) capable of being permitted to participate in a study can provide consent. Parents/legal guardians of minors can also provide consent to allow their children to participate in a study.

Whenever possible, investigators should obtain the consent of participants. In practice, this means it is not sufficient to get potential participants to say “Yes.”

They also need to know what it is that they agree to. In other words, the psychologist should, so far as is practicable, explain what is involved in advance and obtain the informed consent of participants.

Informed consent must be informed, voluntary, and rational. Participants must be given relevant details to make an informed decision, including the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits. Consent must be given voluntarily without undue coercion. And participants must have the capacity to rationally weigh the decision.

Components of informed consent include clearly explaining the risks and expected benefits, addressing potential therapeutic misconceptions about experimental treatments, allowing participants to ask questions, and describing methods to minimize risks like emotional distress.

Investigators should tailor the consent language and process appropriately for the study population. Obtaining meaningful informed consent is an ethical imperative for human subjects research.

The voluntary nature of participation should not be compromised through coercion or undue influence. Inducements should be fair and not excessive/inappropriate.

However, it is not always possible to gain informed consent.  Where the researcher can’t ask the actual participants, a similar group of people can be asked how they would feel about participating.

If they think it would be OK, then it can be assumed that the real participants will also find it acceptable. This is known as presumptive consent.

However, a problem with this method is that there might be a mismatch between how people think they would feel/behave and how they actually feel and behave during a study.

In order for consent to be ‘informed,’ consent forms may need to be accompanied by an information sheet for participants’ setting out information about the proposed study (in lay terms), along with details about the investigators and how they can be contacted.

Special considerations exist when obtaining consent from vulnerable populations with decisional impairments, such as psychiatric patients, intellectually disabled persons, and children/adolescents. Capacity can vary widely so should be assessed individually, but interventions to improve comprehension may help. Legally authorized representatives usually must provide consent for children.

Participants must be given information relating to the following:

• A statement that participation is voluntary and that refusal to participate will not result in any consequences or any loss of benefits that the person is otherwise entitled to receive.
• Purpose of the research.
• All foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant (if there are any). These include not only physical injury but also possible psychological.
• Procedures involved in the research.
• Benefits of the research to society and possibly to the individual human subject.
• Length of time the subject is expected to participate.
• Person to contact for answers to questions or in the event of injury or emergency.
• Subjects” right to confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.

Debriefing after a study involves informing participants about the purpose, providing an opportunity to ask questions, and addressing any harm from participation. Debriefing serves an educational function and allows researchers to correct misconceptions. It is an ethical imperative.

After the research is over, the participant should be able to discuss the procedure and the findings with the psychologist. They must be given a general idea of what the researcher was investigating and why, and their part in the research should be explained.

Participants must be told if they have been deceived and given reasons why. They must be asked if they have any questions, which should be answered honestly and as fully as possible.

Debriefing should occur as soon as possible and be as full as possible; experimenters should take reasonable steps to ensure that participants understand debriefing.

“The purpose of debriefing is to remove any misconceptions and anxieties that the participants have about the research and to leave them with a sense of dignity, knowledge, and a perception of time not wasted” (Harris, 1998).

The debriefing aims to provide information and help the participant leave the experimental situation in a similar frame of mind as when he/she entered it (Aronson, 1988).

Exceptions may exist if debriefing seriously compromises study validity or causes harm itself, like negative emotions in children. Consultation with an institutional review board guides exceptions.

Debriefing indicates investigators’ commitment to participant welfare. Harms may not be raised in the debriefing itself, so responsibility continues after data collection. Following up demonstrates respect and protects persons in human subjects research.

Protection of Participants

Researchers must ensure that those participating in research will not be caused distress. They must be protected from physical and mental harm. This means you must not embarrass, frighten, offend or harm participants.

Normally, the risk of harm must be no greater than in ordinary life, i.e., participants should not be exposed to risks greater than or additional to those encountered in their normal lifestyles.

The researcher must also ensure that if vulnerable groups are to be used (elderly, disabled, children, etc.), they must receive special care. For example, if studying children, ensure their participation is brief as they get tired easily and have a limited attention span.

Researchers are not always accurately able to predict the risks of taking part in a study, and in some cases, a therapeutic debriefing may be necessary if participants have become disturbed during the research (as happened to some participants in Zimbardo’s prisoners/guards study ).

Deception research involves purposely misleading participants or withholding information that could influence their participation decision. This method is controversial because it limits informed consent and autonomy, but can provide otherwise unobtainable valuable knowledge.

Types of deception include (i) deliberate misleading, e.g. using confederates, staged manipulations in field settings, deceptive instructions; (ii) deception by omission, e.g., failure to disclose full information about the study, or creating ambiguity.

The researcher should avoid deceiving participants about the nature of the research unless there is no alternative – and even then, this would need to be judged acceptable by an independent expert. However, some types of research cannot be carried out without at least some element of deception.

For example, in Milgram’s study of obedience , the participants thought they were giving electric shocks to a learner when they answered a question wrongly. In reality, no shocks were given, and the learners were confederates of Milgram.

This is sometimes necessary to avoid demand characteristics (i.e., the clues in an experiment that lead participants to think they know what the researcher is looking for).

Another common example is when a stooge or confederate of the experimenter is used (this was the case in both the experiments carried out by Asch ).

According to ethics codes, deception must have strong scientific justification, and non-deceptive alternatives should not be feasible. Deception that causes significant harm is prohibited. Investigators should carefully weigh whether deception is necessary and ethical for their research.

However, participants must be deceived as little as possible, and any deception must not cause distress.  Researchers can determine whether participants are likely distressed when deception is disclosed by consulting culturally relevant groups.

Participants should immediately be informed of the deception without compromising the study’s integrity. Reactions to learning of deception can range from understanding to anger. Debriefing should explain the scientific rationale and social benefits to minimize negative reactions.

If the participant is likely to object or be distressed once they discover the true nature of the research at debriefing, then the study is unacceptable.

If you have gained participants’ informed consent by deception, then they will have agreed to take part without actually knowing what they were consenting to.  The true nature of the research should be revealed at the earliest possible opportunity or at least during debriefing.

Some researchers argue that deception can never be justified and object to this practice as it (i) violates an individual’s right to choose to participate; (ii) is a questionable basis on which to build a discipline; and (iii) leads to distrust of psychology in the community.

Confidentiality

Protecting participant confidentiality is an ethical imperative that demonstrates respect, ensures honest participation, and prevents harms like embarrassment or legal issues. Methods like data encryption, coding systems, and secure storage should match the research methodology.

Participants and the data gained from them must be kept anonymous unless they give their full consent.  No names must be used in a lab report .

Researchers must clearly describe to participants the limits of confidentiality and methods to protect privacy. With internet research, threats exist like third-party data access; security measures like encryption should be explained. For non-internet research, other protections should be noted too, like coding systems and restricted data access.

High-profile data breaches have eroded public trust. Methods that minimize identifiable information can further guard confidentiality. For example, researchers can consider whether birthdates are necessary or just ages.

Generally, reducing personal details collected and limiting accessibility safeguards participants. Following strong confidentiality protections demonstrates respect for persons in human subjects research.

What do we do if we discover something that should be disclosed (e.g., a criminal act)? Researchers have no legal obligation to disclose criminal acts and must determine the most important consideration: their duty to the participant vs. their duty to the wider community.

Ultimately, decisions to disclose information must be set in the context of the research aims.

Withdrawal from an Investigation

Participants should be able to leave a study anytime if they feel uncomfortable. They should also be allowed to withdraw their data. They should be told at the start of the study that they have the right to withdraw.

They should not have pressure placed upon them to continue if they do not want to (a guideline flouted in Milgram’s research).

Participants may feel they shouldn’t withdraw as this may ‘spoil’ the study. Many participants are paid or receive course credits; they may worry they won’t get this if they withdraw.

Even at the end of the study, the participant has a final opportunity to withdraw the data they have provided for the research.

Ethical Issues in Psychology & Socially Sensitive Research

There has been an assumption over the years by many psychologists that provided they follow the BPS or APA guidelines when using human participants and that all leave in a similar state of mind to how they turned up, not having been deceived or humiliated, given a debrief, and not having had their confidentiality breached, that there are no ethical concerns with their research.

But consider the following examples:

a) Caughy et al. 1994 found that middle-class children in daycare at an early age generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar families reared in the home.

Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the children participating would have been unduly affected by this research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been obtained, and no harm would have been caused.

However, consider the wider implications of this study when the results are published, particularly for parents of middle-class infants who are considering placing their young children in daycare or those who recently have!

b)  IQ tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15 points below the average white score.

When black Americans are given these tests, they presumably complete them willingly and are not harmed as individuals. However, when published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market, etc.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for Socially Sensitive Research (SSR) outline 4 groups that may be affected by psychological research: It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!

• Members of the social group being studied, such as racial or ethnic group. For example, early research on IQ was used to discriminate against US Blacks.
• Friends and relatives of those participating in the study, particularly in case studies, where individuals may become famous or infamous. Cases that spring to mind would include Genie’s mother.
• The research team. There are examples of researchers being intimidated because of the line of research they are in.
• The institution in which the research is conducted.

salso suggest there are 4 main ethical concerns when conducting SSR:

• The research question or hypothesis.
• The treatment of individual participants.
• The institutional context.
• How the findings of the research are interpreted and applied.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

Sieber and Stanley suggest the following ethical guidelines for carrying out SSR. There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in general.

Privacy : This refers to people rather than data. Asking people questions of a personal nature (e.g., about sexuality) could offend.

Confidentiality: This refers to data. Information (e.g., about H.I.V. status) leaked to others may affect the participant’s life.

Sound & valid methodology : This is even more vital when the research topic is socially sensitive. Academics can detect flaws in methods, but the lay public and the media often don’t.

When research findings are publicized, people are likely to consider them fact, and policies may be based on them. Examples are Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies and intelligence testing.

Deception : Causing the wider public to believe something, which isn’t true by the findings, you report (e.g., that parents are responsible for how their children turn out).

Informed consent : Participants should be made aware of how participating in the research may affect them.

Justice & equitable treatment : Examples of unjust treatment are (i) publicizing an idea, which creates a prejudice against a group, & (ii) withholding a treatment, which you believe is beneficial, from some participants so that you can use them as controls.

Scientific freedom : Science should not be censored, but there should be some monitoring of sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities against their rights to do the research.

Ownership of data : When research findings could be used to make social policies, which affect people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, a party commissions research with their interests in mind (e.g., an industry, an advertising agency, a political party, or the military).

Some people argue that scientists should be compelled to disclose their results so that other scientists can re-analyze them. If this had happened in Burt’s day, there might not have been such widespread belief in the genetic transmission of intelligence. George Miller (Miller’s Magic 7) famously argued that we should give psychology away.

The values of social scientists : Psychologists can be divided into two main groups: those who advocate a humanistic approach (individuals are important and worthy of study, quality of life is important, intuition is useful) and those advocating a scientific approach (rigorous methodology, objective data).

The researcher’s values may conflict with those of the participant/institution. For example, if someone with a scientific approach was evaluating a counseling technique based on a humanistic approach, they would judge it on criteria that those giving & receiving the therapy may not consider important.

Cost/benefit analysis : It is unethical if the costs outweigh the potential/actual benefits. However, it isn’t easy to assess costs & benefits accurately & the participants themselves rarely benefit from research.

Sieber & Stanley advise that researchers should not avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.

• They need to take more care over consent, debriefing, etc. when the issue is sensitive.
• They should be aware of how their findings may be interpreted & used by others.
• They should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these.
• They should make the limitations of their research explicit (e.g., ‘the study was only carried out on white middle-class American male students,’ ‘the study is based on questionnaire data, which may be inaccurate,’ etc.
• They should be careful how they communicate with the media and policymakers.
• They should be aware of the balance between their obligations to participants and those to society (e.g. if the participant tells them something which they feel they should tell the police/social services).
• They should be aware of their own values and biases and those of the participants.

Arguments for SSR

• Psychologists have devised methods to resolve the issues raised.
• SSR is the most scrutinized research in psychology. Ethical committees reject more SSR than any other form of research.
• By gaining a better understanding of issues such as gender, race, and sexuality, we are able to gain greater acceptance and reduce prejudice.
• SSR has been of benefit to society, for example, EWT. This has made us aware that EWT can be flawed and should not be used without corroboration. It has also made us aware that the EWT of children is every bit as reliable as that of adults.
• Most research is still on white middle-class Americans (about 90% of research is quoted in texts!). SSR is helping to redress the balance and make us more aware of other cultures and outlooks.

Arguments against SSR

• Flawed research has been used to dictate social policy and put certain groups at a disadvantage.
• Research has been used to discriminate against groups in society, such as the sterilization of people in the USA between 1910 and 1920 because they were of low intelligence, criminal, or suffered from psychological illness.
• The guidelines used by psychologists to control SSR lack power and, as a result, are unable to prevent indefensible research from being carried out.

American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”.  American Psychologist ,  19 (6), 421.

Caughy, M. O. B., DiPietro, J. A., & Strobino, D. M. (1994). Day‐care participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development of low‐income children.  Child development ,  65 (2), 457-471.

Harris, B. (1988). Key words: A history of debriefing in social psychology. In J. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 188-212). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Applying Hamlet’s question to the ethical conduct of research: A conceptual addendum. American Psychologist, 39(5) , 561.

Sieber, J. E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research.  American psychologist ,  43 (1), 49.

The British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics. www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf

Further Information

• MIT Psychology Ethics Lecture Slides

BPS Documents

• Code of Ethics and Conduct (2018)
• Good Practice Guidelines for the Conduct of Psychological Research within the NHS
• Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals
• Guidelines for ethical practice in psychological research online

APA Documents

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts

Marie-josée drolet.

1 Department of Occupational Therapy (OT), Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), Trois-Rivières (Québec), Canada

Eugénie Rose-Derouin

2 Bachelor OT program, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), Trois-Rivières (Québec), Canada

Julie-Claude Leblanc

Mélanie ruest, bryn williams-jones.

3 Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal (Québec), Canada

In the context of academic research, a diversity of ethical issues, conditioned by the different roles of members within these institutions, arise. Previous studies on this topic addressed mainly the perceptions of researchers. However, to our knowledge, no studies have explored the transversal ethical issues from a wider spectrum, including other members of academic institutions as the research ethics board (REB) members, and the research ethics experts. The present study used a descriptive phenomenological approach to document the ethical issues experienced by a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts. Data collection involved socio-demographic questionnaires and individual semi-structured interviews. Following the triangulation of different perspectives (researchers, REB members and ethics experts), emerging ethical issues were synthesized in ten units of meaning: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. This study highlighted several problematic elements that can support the identification of future solutions to resolve transversal ethical issues in research that affect the heterogeneous members of the academic community.

Introduction

Research includes a set of activities in which researchers use various structured methods to contribute to the development of knowledge, whether this knowledge is theoretical, fundamental, or applied (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). University research is carried out in a highly competitive environment that is characterized by ever-increasing demands (i.e., on time, productivity), insufficient access to research funds, and within a market economy that values productivity and speed often to the detriment of quality or rigour – this research context creates a perfect recipe for breaches in research ethics, like research misbehaviour or misconduct (i.e., conduct that is ethically questionable or unacceptable because it contravenes the accepted norms of responsible conduct of research or compromises the respect of core ethical values that are widely held by the research community) (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ; Sieber, 2004 ). Problematic ethics and integrity issues – e.g., conflicts of interest, falsification of data, non-respect of participants’ rights, and plagiarism, to name but a few – have the potential to both undermine the credibility of research and lead to negative consequences for many stakeholders, including researchers, research assistants and personnel, research participants, academic institutions, and society as a whole (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ). It is thus evident that the academic community should be able to identify these different ethical issues in order to evaluate the nature of the risks that they pose (and for whom), and then work towards their prevention or management (i.e., education, enhanced policies and procedures, risk mitigation strategies).

In this article, we define an “ethical issue” as any situation that may compromise, in whole or in part, the respect of at least one moral value (Swisher et al., 2005 ) that is considered socially legitimate and should thus be respected. In general, ethical issues occur at three key moments or stages of the research process: (1) research design (i.e., conception, project planning), (2) research conduct (i.e., data collection, data analysis) and (3) knowledge translation or communication (e.g., publications of results, conferences, press releases) (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). According to Sieber ( 2004 ), ethical issues in research can be classified into five categories, related to: (a) communication with participants and the community, (b) acquisition and use of research data, (c) external influence on research, (d) risks and benefits of the research, and (e) selection and use of research theories and methods. Many of these issues are related to breaches of research ethics norms, misbehaviour or research misconduct. Bruhn et al., ( 2002 ) developed a typology of misbehaviour and misconduct in academia that can be used to judge the seriousness of different cases. This typology takes into consideration two axes of reflection: (a) the origin of the situation (i.e., is it the researcher’s own fault or due to the organizational context?), and (b) the scope and severity (i.e., is this the first instance or a recurrent behaviour? What is the nature of the situation? What are the consequences, for whom, for how many people, and for which organizations?).

A previous detailed review of the international literature on ethical issues in research revealed several interesting findings (Beauchemin et al., 2021 ). Indeed, the current literature is dominated by descriptive ethics, i.e., the sharing by researchers from various disciplines of the ethical issues they have personally experienced. While such anecdotal documentation is relevant, it is insufficient because it does not provide a global view of the situation. Among the reviewed literature, empirical studies were in the minority (Table  1 ) – only about one fifth of the sample (n = 19) presented empirical research findings on ethical issues in research. The first of these studies was conducted almost 50 years ago (Hunt et al., 1984 ), with the remainder conducted in the 1990s. Eight studies were conducted in the United States (n = 8), five in Canada (n = 5), three in England (n = 3), two in Sweden (n = 2) and one in Ghana (n = 1).

Summary of Empirical Studies on Ethical Issues in Research by the year of publication

Further, the majority of studies in our sample (n = 12) collected the perceptions of a homogeneous group of participants, usually researchers (n = 14) and sometimes health professionals (n = 6). A minority of studies (n = 7) triangulated the perceptions of diverse research stakeholders (i.e., researchers and research participants, or students). To our knowledge, only one study has examined perceptions of ethical issues in research by research ethics board members (REB; Institutional Review Boards [IRB] in the USA), and none to date have documented the perceptions of research ethics experts. Finally, nine studies (n = 9) adopted a qualitative design, seven studies (n = 7) a quantitative design, and three (n = 3) a mixed-methods design.

More studies using empirical research methods are needed to better identify broader trends, to enrich discussions on the values that should govern responsible conduct of research in the academic community, and to evaluate the means by which these values can be supported in practice (Bahn, 2012 ; Beauchemin et al., 2021 ; Bruhn et al., 2002 ; Henderson et al., 2013 ; Resnik & Elliot, 2016; Sieber 2004 ). To this end, we conducted an empirical qualitative study to document the perceptions and experiences of a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts, to answer the following broad question: What are the ethical issues in research?

Research Methods

Research design.

A qualitative research approach involving individual semi-structured interviews was used to systematically document ethical issues (De Poy & Gitlin, 2010 ; Hammell et al., 2000 ). Specifically, a descriptive phenomenological approach inspired by the philosophy of Husserl was used (Husserl, 1970 , 1999 ), as it is recommended for documenting the perceptions of ethical issues raised by various practices (Hunt & Carnavale, 2011 ).

Ethical considerations

The principal investigator obtained ethics approval for this project from the Research Ethics Board of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR). All members of the research team signed a confidentiality agreement, and research participants signed the consent form after reading an information letter explaining the nature of the research project.

Sampling and recruitment

As indicated above, three types of participants were sought: (1) researchers from different academic disciplines conducting research (i.e., theoretical, fundamental or empirical) in Canadian universities; (2) REB members working in Canadian organizations responsible for the ethical review, oversight or regulation of research; and (3) research ethics experts, i.e., academics or ethicists who teach research ethics, conduct research in research ethics, or are scholars who have acquired a specialization in research ethics. To be included in the study, participants had to work in Canada, speak and understand English or French, and be willing to participate in the study. Following Thomas and Polio’s (2002) recommendation to recruit between six and twelve participants (for a homogeneous sample) to ensure data saturation, for our heterogeneous sample, we aimed to recruit approximately twelve participants in order to obtain data saturation. Having used this method several times in related projects in professional ethics, data saturation is usually achieved with 10 to 15 participants (Drolet & Goulet, 2018 ; Drolet & Girard, 2020 ; Drolet et al., 2020 ). From experience, larger samples only serve to increase the degree of data saturation, especially in heterogeneous samples (Drolet et al., 2017 , 2019 ; Drolet & Maclure, 2016 ).

Purposive sampling facilitated the identification of participants relevant to documenting the phenomenon in question (Fortin, 2010 ). To ensure a rich and most complete representation of perceptions, we sought participants with varied and complementary characteristics with regards to the social roles they occupy in research practice (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ). A triangulation of sources was used for the recruitment (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006 ). The websites of Canadian universities and Canadian health institution REBs, as well as those of major Canadian granting agencies (i.e., the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Fonds de recherche du Quebec), were searched to identify individuals who might be interested in participating in the study. Further, people known by the research team for their knowledge and sensitivity to ethical issues in research were asked to participate. Research participants were also asked to suggest other individuals who met the study criteria.

Data Collection

Two tools were used for data collecton: (a) a socio-demographic questionnaire, and (b) a semi-structured individual interview guide. English and French versions of these two documents were used and made available, depending on participant preferences. In addition, although the interview guide contained the same questions, they were adapted to participants’ specific roles (i.e., researcher, REB member, research ethics expert). When contacted by email by the research assistant, participants were asked to confirm under which role they wished to participate (because some participants might have multiple, overlapping responsibilities) and they were sent the appropriate interview guide.

The interview guides each had two parts: an introduction and a section on ethical issues. The introduction consisted of general questions to put the participant at ease (i.e., “Tell me what a typical day at work is like for you”). The section on ethical issues was designed to capture the participant’s perceptions through questions such as: “Tell me three stories you have experienced at work that involve an ethical issue?” and “Do you feel that your organization is doing enough to address, manage, and resolve ethical issues in your work?”. Although some interviews were conducted in person, the majority were conducted by videoconference to promote accessibility and because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were digitally recorded so that the verbatim could be transcribed in full, and varied between 40 and 120 min in duration, with an average of 90 min. Research assistants conducted the interviews and transcribed the verbatim.

Data Analysis

The socio-demographic questionnaires were subjected to simple descriptive statistical analyses (i.e., means and totals), and the semi-structured interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis. The steps proposed by Giorgi ( 1997 ) for a Husserlian phenomenological reduction of the data were used. After collecting, recording, and transcribing the interviews, all verbatim were analyzed by at least two analysts: a research assistant (2nd author of this article) and the principal investigator (1st author) or a postdoctoral fellow (3rd author). The repeated reading of the verbatim allowed the first analyst to write a synopsis, i.e., an initial extraction of units of meaning. The second analyst then read the synopses, which were commented and improved if necessary. Agreement between analysts allowed the final drafting of the interview synopses, which were then analyzed by three analysts to generate and organize the units of meaning that emerged from the qualitative data.

Participants

Sixteen individuals (n = 16) participated in the study, of whom nine (9) identified as female and seven (7) as male (Table  2 ). Participants ranged in age from 22 to 72 years, with a mean age of 47.5 years. Participants had between one (1) and 26 years of experience in the research setting, with an average of 14.3 years of experience. Participants held a variety of roles, including: REB members (n = 11), researchers (n = 10), research ethics experts (n = 4), and research assistant (n = 1). As mentioned previously, seven (7) participants held more than one role, i.e., REB member, research ethics expert, and researcher. The majority (87.5%) of participants were working in Quebec, with the remaining working in other Canadian provinces. Although all participants considered themselves to be francophone, one quarter (n = 4) identified themselves as belonging to a cultural minority group.

Description of Participants

With respect to their academic background, most participants (n = 9) had a PhD, three (3) had a post-doctorate, two (2) had a master’s degree, and two (2) had a bachelor’s degree. Participants came from a variety of disciplines: nine (9) had a specialty in the humanities or social sciences, four (4) in the health sciences and three (3) in the natural sciences. In terms of their knowledge of ethics, five (5) participants reported having taken one university course entirely dedicated to ethics, four (4) reported having taken several university courses entirely dedicated to ethics, three (3) had a university degree dedicated to ethics, while two (2) only had a few hours or days of training in ethics and two (2) reported having no knowledge of ethics.

Ethical issues

As Fig.  1 illustrates, ten units of meaning emerge from the data analysis, namely: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. To illustrate the results, excerpts from verbatim interviews are presented in the following sub-sections. Most of the excerpts have been translated into English as the majority of interviews were conducted with French-speaking participants.

Ethical issues in research according to the participants

Research Integrity

The research environment is highly competitive and performance-based. Several participants, in particular researchers and research ethics experts, felt that this environment can lead both researchers and research teams to engage in unethical behaviour that reflects a lack of research integrity. For example, as some participants indicated, competition for grants and scientific publications is sometimes so intense that researchers falsify research results or plagiarize from colleagues to achieve their goals.

Some people will lie or exaggerate their research findings in order to get funding. Then, you see it afterwards, you realize: “ah well, it didn’t work, but they exaggerated what they found and what they did” (participant 14). Another problem in research is the identification of authors when there is a publication. Very often, there are authors who don’t even know what the publication is about and that their name is on it. (…) The time that it surprised me the most was just a few months ago when I saw someone I knew who applied for a teaching position. He got it I was super happy for him. Then I looked at his publications and … there was one that caught my attention much more than the others, because I was in it and I didn’t know what that publication was. I was the second author of a publication that I had never read (participant 14). I saw a colleague who had plagiarized another colleague. [When the colleague] found out about it, he complained. So, plagiarism is a serious [ethical breach]. I would also say that there is a certain amount of competition in the university faculties, especially for grants (…). There are people who want to win at all costs or get as much as possible. They are not necessarily going to consider their colleagues. They don’t have much of a collegial spirit (participant 10).

These examples of research misbehaviour or misconduct are sometimes due to or associated with situations of conflicts of interest, which may be poorly managed by certain researchers or research teams, as noted by many participants.

Conflict of interest

The actors and institutions involved in research have diverse interests, like all humans and institutions. As noted in Chap. 7 of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2, 2018),

“researchers and research students hold trust relationships, either directly or indirectly, with participants, research sponsors, institutions, their professional bodies and society. These trust relationships can be put at risk by conflicts of interest that may compromise independence, objectivity or ethical duties of loyalty. Although the potential for such conflicts has always existed, pressures on researchers (i.e., to delay or withhold dissemination of research outcomes or to use inappropriate recruitment strategies) heighten concerns that conflicts of interest may affect ethical behaviour” (p. 92).

The sources of these conflicts are varied and can include interpersonal conflicts, financial partnerships, third-party pressures, academic or economic interests, a researcher holding multiple roles within an institution, or any other incentive that may compromise a researcher’s independence, integrity, and neutrality (TCPS2, 2018). While it is not possible to eliminate all conflicts of interest, it is important to manage them properly and to avoid temptations to behave unethically.

Ethical temptations correspond to situations in which people are tempted to prioritize their own interests to the detriment of the ethical goods that should, in their own context, govern their actions (Swisher et al., 2005 ). In the case of researchers, this refers to situations that undermine independence, integrity, neutrality, or even the set of principles that govern research ethics (TCPS2, 2018) or the responsible conduct of research. According to study participants, these types of ethical issues frequently occur in research. Many participants, especially researchers and REB members, reported that conflicts of interest can arise when members of an organization make decisions to obtain large financial rewards or to increase their academic profile, often at the expense of the interests of members of their research team, research participants, or even the populations affected by their research.

A company that puts money into making its drug work wants its drug to work. So, homeopathy is a good example, because there are not really any consequences of homeopathy, there are not very many side effects, because there are no effects at all. So, it’s not dangerous, but it’s not a good treatment either. But some people will want to make it work. And that’s a big issue when you’re sitting at a table and there are eight researchers, and there are two or three who are like that, and then there are four others who are neutral, and I say to myself, this is not science. I think that this is a very big ethical issue (participant 14). There are also times in some research where there will be more links with pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, there are then large amounts of money that will be very interesting for the health-care institutions because they still receive money for clinical trials. They’re still getting some compensation because its time consuming for the people involved and all that. The pharmaceutical companies have money, so they will compensate, and that is sometimes interesting for the institutions, and since we are a bit caught up in this, in the sense that we have no choice but to accept it. (…) It may not be the best research in the world, there may be a lot of side effects due to the drugs, but it’s good to accept it, we’re going to be part of the clinical trial (participant 3). It is integrity, what we believe should be done or said. Often by the pressure of the environment, integrity is in tension with the pressures of the environment, so it takes resistance, it takes courage in research. (…) There were all the debates there about the problems of research that was funded and then the companies kept control over what was written. That was really troubling for a lot of researchers (participant 5).

Further, these situations sometimes have negative consequences for research participants as reported by some participants.

Respect for research participants

Many research projects, whether they are psychosocial or biomedical in nature, involve human participants. Relationships between the members of research teams and their research participants raise ethical issues that can be complex. Research projects must always be designed to respect the rights and interests of research participants, and not just those of researchers. However, participants in our study – i.e., REB members, researchers, and research ethics experts – noted that some research teams seem to put their own interests ahead of those of research participants. They also emphasized the importance of ensuring the respect, well-being, and safety of research participants. The ethical issues related to this unit of meaning are: respect for free, informed and ongoing consent of research participants; respect for and the well-being of participants; data protection and confidentiality; over-solicitation of participants; ownership of the data collected on participants; the sometimes high cost of scientific innovations and their accessibility; balance between the social benefits of research and the risks to participants (particularly in terms of safety); balance between collective well-being (development of knowledge) and the individual rights of participants; exploitation of participants; paternalism when working with populations in vulnerable situations; and the social acceptability of certain types of research. The following excerpts present some of these issues.

Where it disturbs me ethically is in the medical field – because it’s more in the medical field that we’re going to see this – when consent forms are presented to patients to solicit them as participants, and then [these forms] have an average of 40 pages. That annoys me. When they say that it has to be easy to understand and all that, adapted to the language, and then the hyper-technical language plus there are 40 pages to read, I don’t understand how you’re going to get informed consent after reading 40 pages. (…) For me, it doesn’t work. I read them to evaluate them and I have a certain level of education and experience in ethics, and there are times when I don’t understand anything (participant 2). There is a lot of pressure from researchers who want to recruit research participants (…). The idea that when you enter a health care institution, you become a potential research participant, when you say “yes to a research, you check yes to all research”, then everyone can ask you. I think that researchers really have this fantasy of saying to themselves: “as soon as people walk through the door of our institution, they become potential participants with whom we can communicate and get them involved in all projects”. There’s a kind of idea that, yes, it can be done, but it has to be somewhat supervised to avoid over-solicitation (…). Researchers are very interested in facilitating recruitment and making it more fluid, but perhaps to the detriment of confidentiality, privacy, and respect; sometimes that’s what it is, to think about what type of data you’re going to have in your bank of potential participants? Is it just name and phone number or are you getting into more sensitive information? (participant 9).

In addition, one participant reported that their university does not provide the resources required to respect the confidentiality of research participants.

The issue is as follows: researchers, of course, commit to protecting data with passwords and all that, but we realize that in practice, it is more difficult. It is not always as protected as one might think, because professor-researchers will run out of space. Will the universities make rooms available to researchers, places where they can store these things, especially when they have paper documentation, and is there indeed a guarantee of confidentiality? Some researchers have told me: “Listen; there are even filing cabinets in the corridors”. So, that certainly poses a concrete challenge. How do we go about challenging the administrative authorities? Tell them it’s all very well to have an ethics committee, but you have to help us, you also have to make sure that the necessary infrastructures are in place so that what we are proposing is really put into practice (participant 4).

If the relationships with research participants are likely to raise ethical issues, so too are the relationships with students, notably research assistants. On this topic, several participants discussed the lack of supervision or recognition offered to research assistants by researchers as well as the power imbalances between members of the research team.

Lack of Supervision and Power Imbalances

Many research teams are composed not only of researchers, but also of students who work as research assistants. The relationship between research assistants and other members of research teams can sometimes be problematic and raise ethical issues, particularly because of the inevitable power asymmetries. In the context of this study, several participants – including a research assistant, REB members, and researchers – discussed the lack of supervision or recognition of the work carried out by students, psychological pressure, and the more or less well-founded promises that are sometimes made to students. Participants also mentioned the exploitation of students by certain research teams, which manifest when students are inadequately paid, i.e., not reflective of the number of hours actually worked, not a fair wage, or even a wage at all.

[As a research assistant], it was more of a feeling of distress that I felt then because I didn’t know what to do. (…) I was supposed to get coaching or be supported, but I didn’t get anything in the end. It was like, “fix it by yourself”. (…) All research assistants were supposed to be supervised, but in practice they were not (participant 1). Very often, we have a master’s or doctoral student that we put on a subject and we consider that the project will be well done, while the student is learning. So, it happens that the student will do a lot of work and then we realize that the work is poorly done, and it is not necessarily the student’s fault. He wasn’t necessarily well supervised. There are directors who have 25 students, and they just don’t supervise them (participant 14). I think it’s really the power relationship. I thought to myself, how I saw my doctorate, the beginning of my research career, I really wanted to be in that laboratory, but they are the ones who are going to accept me or not, so what do I do to be accepted? I finally accept their conditions [which was to work for free]. If these are the conditions that are required to enter this lab, I want to go there. So, what do I do, well I accepted. It doesn’t make sense, but I tell myself that I’m still privileged, because I don’t have so many financial worries, one more reason to work for free, even though it doesn’t make sense (participant 1). In research, we have research assistants. (…). The fact of using people… so that’s it, you have to take into account where they are, respect them, but at the same time they have to show that they are there for the research. In English, we say “carry” or take care of people. With research assistants, this is often a problem that I have observed: for grant machines, the person is the last to be found there. Researchers, who will take, use student data, without giving them the recognition for it (participant 5). The problem at our university is that they reserve funding for Canadian students. The doctoral clientele in my field is mostly foreign students. So, our students are poorly funded. I saw one student end up in the shelter, in a situation of poverty. It ended very badly for him because he lacked financial resources. Once you get into that dynamic, it’s very hard to get out. I was made aware of it because the director at the time had taken him under her wing and wanted to try to find a way to get him out of it. So, most of my students didn’t get funded (participant 16). There I wrote “manipulation”, but it’s kind of all promises all the time. I, for example, was promised a lot of advancement, like when I got into the lab as a graduate student, it was said that I had an interest in [this particular area of research]. I think there are a lot of graduate students who must have gone through that, but it is like, “Well, your CV has to be really good, if you want to do a lot of things and big things. If you do this, if you do this research contract, the next year you could be the coordinator of this part of the lab and supervise this person, get more contracts, be paid more. Let’s say: you’ll be invited to go to this conference, this big event”. They were always dangling something, but you have to do that first to get there. But now, when you’ve done that, you have to do this business. It’s like a bit of manipulation, I think. That was very hard to know who is telling the truth and who is not (participant 1).

These ethical issues have significant negative consequences for students. Indeed, they sometimes find themselves at the mercy of researchers, for whom they work, struggling to be recognized and included as authors of an article, for example, or to receive the salary that they are due. For their part, researchers also sometimes find themselves trapped in research structures that can negatively affect their well-being. As many participants reported, researchers work in organizations that set very high productivity standards and in highly competitive contexts, all within a general culture characterized by individualism.

Individualism and performance

Participants, especially researchers, discussed the culture of individualism and performance that characterizes the academic environment. In glorifying excellence, some universities value performance and productivity, often at the expense of psychological well-being and work-life balance (i.e., work overload and burnout). Participants noted that there are ethical silences in their organizations on this issue, and that the culture of individualism and performance is not challenged for fear of retribution or simply to survive, i.e., to perform as expected. Participants felt that this culture can have a significant negative impact on the quality of the research conducted, as research teams try to maximize the quantity of their work (instead of quality) in a highly competitive context, which is then exacerbated by a lack of resources and support, and where everything must be done too quickly.

The work-life balance with the professional ethics related to work in a context where you have too much and you have to do a lot, it is difficult to balance all that and there is a lot of pressure to perform. If you don’t produce enough, that’s it; after that, you can’t get any more funds, so that puts pressure on you to do more and more and more (participant 3). There is a culture, I don’t know where it comes from, and that is extremely bureaucratic. If you dare to raise something, you’re going to have many, many problems. They’re going to make you understand it. So, I don’t talk. It is better: your life will be easier. I think there are times when you have to talk (…) because there are going to be irreparable consequences. (…) I’m not talking about a climate of terror, because that’s exaggerated, it’s not true, people are not afraid. But people close their office door and say nothing because it’s going to make their work impossible and they’re not going to lose their job, they’re not going to lose money, but researchers need time to be focused, so they close their office door and say nothing (participant 16).

Researchers must produce more and more, and they feel little support in terms of how to do such production, ethically, and how much exactly they are expected to produce. As this participant reports, the expectation is an unspoken rule: more is always better.

It’s sometimes the lack of a clear line on what the expectations are as a researcher, like, “ah, we don’t have any specific expectations, but produce, produce, produce, produce.” So, in that context, it’s hard to be able to put the line precisely: “have I done enough for my work?” (participant 3).

Inadequate ethical Guidance

While the productivity expectation is not clear, some participants – including researchers, research ethics experts, and REB members – also felt that the ethical expectations of some REBs were unclear. The issue of the inadequate ethical guidance of research includes the administrative mechanisms to ensure that research projects respect the principles of research ethics. According to those participants, the forms required for both researchers and REB members are increasingly long and numerous, and one participant noted that the standards to be met are sometimes outdated and disconnected from the reality of the field. Multicentre ethics review (by several REBs) was also critiqued by a participant as an inefficient method that encumbers the processes for reviewing research projects. Bureaucratization imposes an ever-increasing number of forms and ethics guidelines that actually hinder researchers’ ethical reflection on the issues at stake, leading the ethics review process to be perceived as purely bureaucratic in nature.

The ethical dimension and the ethical review of projects have become increasingly bureaucratized. (…) When I first started working (…) it was less bureaucratic, less strict then. I would say [there are now] tons of forms to fill out. Of course, we can’t do without it, it’s one of the ways of marking out ethics and ensuring that there are ethical considerations in research, but I wonder if it hasn’t become too bureaucratized, so that it’s become a kind of technical reflex to fill out these forms, and I don’t know if people really do ethical reflection as such anymore (participant 10). The fundamental structural issue, I would say, is the mismatch between the normative requirements and the real risks posed by the research, i.e., we have many, many requirements to meet; we have very long forms to fill out but the research projects we evaluate often pose few risks (participant 8). People [in vulnerable situations] were previously unable to participate because of overly strict research ethics rules that were to protect them, but in the end [these rules] did not protect them. There was a perverse effect, because in the end there was very little research done with these people and that’s why we have very few results, very little evidence [to support practices with these populations] so it didn’t improve the quality of services. (…) We all understand that we have to be careful with that, but when the research is not too risky, we say to ourselves that it would be good because for once a researcher who is interested in that population, because it is not a very popular population, it would be interesting to have results, but often we are blocked by the norms, and then we can’t accept [the project] (participant 2).

Moreover, as one participant noted, accessing ethics training can be a challenge.

There is no course on research ethics. […] Then, I find that it’s boring because you go through university and you come to do your research and you know how to do quantitative and qualitative research, but all the research ethics, where do you get this? I don’t really know (participant 13).

Yet, such training could provide relevant tools to resolve, to some extent, the ethical issues that commonly arise in research. That said, and as noted by many participants, many ethical issues in research are related to social injustices over which research actors have little influence.

Social Injustices

For many participants, notably researchers, the issues that concern social injustices are those related to power asymmetries, stigma, or issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion, i.e., social injustices related to people’s identities (Blais & Drolet, 2022 ). Participants reported experiencing or witnessing discrimination from peers, administration, or lab managers. Such oppression is sometimes cross-sectional and related to a person’s age, cultural background, gender or social status.

I have my African colleague who was quite successful when he arrived but had a backlash from colleagues in the department. I think it’s unconscious, nobody is overtly racist. But I have a young person right now who is the same, who has the same success, who got exactly the same early career award and I don’t see the same backlash. He’s just as happy with what he’s doing. It’s normal, they’re young and they have a lot of success starting out. So, I think there is discrimination. Is it because he is African? Is it because he is black? I think it’s on a subconscious level (participant 16).

Social injustices were experienced or reported by many participants, and included issues related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when one researcher is a woman.

If you do international research, there are things you can’t talk about (…). It is really a barrier to research to not be able to (…) address this question [i.e. the question of inequalities between men and women]. Women’s inequality is going to be addressed [but not within the country where the research takes place as if this inequality exists elsewhere but not here]. There are a lot of women working on inequality issues, doing work and it’s funny because I was talking to a young woman who works at Cairo University and she said to me: “Listen, I saw what you had written, you’re right. I’m willing to work on this but guarantee me a position at your university with a ticket to go”. So yes, there are still many barriers [for women in research] (participant 16).

Because of the varied contextual characteristics that intervene in their occurrence, these social injustices are also related to distributive injustices, as discussed by many participants.

Distributive Injustices

Although there are several views of distributive justice, a classical definition such as that of Aristotle ( 2012 ), describes distributive justice as consisting in distributing honours, wealth, and other social resources or benefits among the members of a community in proportion to their alleged merit. Justice, then, is about determining an equitable distribution of common goods. Contemporary theories of distributive justice are numerous and varied. Indeed, many authors (e.g., Fraser 2011 ; Mills, 2017 ; Sen, 2011 ; Young, 2011 ) have, since Rawls ( 1971 ), proposed different visions of how social burdens and benefits should be shared within a community to ensure equal respect, fairness, and distribution. In our study, what emerges from participants’ narratives is a definite concern for this type of justice. Women researchers, francophone researchers, early career researchers or researchers belonging to racialized groups all discussed inequities in the distribution of research grants and awards, and the extra work they need to do to somehow prove their worth. These inequities are related to how granting agencies determine which projects will be funded.

These situations make me work 2–3 times harder to prove myself and to show people in power that I have a place as a woman in research (participant 12). Number one: it’s conservative thinking. The older ones control what comes in. So, the younger people have to adapt or they don’t get funded (participant 14).

Whether it is discrimination against stigmatized or marginalized populations or interest in certain hot topics, granting agencies judge research projects according to criteria that are sometimes questionable, according to those participants. Faced with difficulties in obtaining funding for their projects, several strategies – some of which are unethical – are used by researchers in order to cope with these situations.

Sometimes there are subjects that everyone goes to, such as nanotechnology (…), artificial intelligence or (…) the therapeutic use of cannabis, which are very fashionable, and this is sometimes to the detriment of other research that is just as relevant, but which is (…), less sexy, less in the spirit of the time. (…) Sometimes this can lead to inequities in the funding of certain research sectors (participant 9). When we use our funds, we get them given to us, we pretty much say what we think we’re going to do with them, but things change… So, when these things change, sometimes it’s an ethical decision, but by force of circumstances I’m obliged to change the project a little bit (…). Is it ethical to make these changes or should I just let the money go because I couldn’t use it the way I said I would? (participant 3).

Moreover, these distributional injustices are not only linked to social injustices, but also epistemic injustices. Indeed, the way in which research honours and grants are distributed within the academic community depends on the epistemic authority of the researchers, which seems to vary notably according to their language of use, their age or their gender, but also to the research design used (inductive versus deductive), their decision to use (or not use) animals in research, or to conduct activist research.

Epistemic injustices

The philosopher Fricker ( 2007 ) conceptualized the notions of epistemic justice and injustice. Epistemic injustice refers to a form of social inequality that manifests itself in the access, recognition, and production of knowledge as well as the various forms of ignorance that arise (Godrie & Dos Santos, 2017 ). Addressing epistemic injustice necessitates acknowledging the iniquitous wrongs suffered by certain groups of socially stigmatized individuals who have been excluded from knowledge, thus limiting their abilities to interpret, understand, or be heard and account for their experiences. In this study, epistemic injustices were experienced or reported by some participants, notably those related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when a researcher is a woman or an early career researcher.

I have never sent a grant application to the federal government in English. I have always done it in French, even though I know that when you receive the review, you can see that reviewers didn’t understand anything because they are English-speaking. I didn’t want to get in the boat. It’s not my job to translate, because let’s be honest, I’m not as good in English as I am in French. So, I do them in my first language, which is the language I’m most used to. Then, technically at the administrative level, they are supposed to be able to do it, but they are not good in French. (…) Then, it’s a very big Canadian ethical issue, because basically there are technically two official languages, but Canada is not a bilingual country, it’s a country with two languages, either one or the other. (…) So I was not funded (participant 14).

Researchers who use inductive (or qualitative) methods observed that their projects are sometimes less well reviewed or understood, while research that adopts a hypothetical-deductive (or quantitative) or mixed methods design is better perceived, considered more credible and therefore more easily funded. Of course, regardless of whether a research project adopts an inductive, deductive or mixed-methods scientific design, or whether it deals with qualitative or quantitative data, it must respect a set of scientific criteria. A research project should achieve its objectives by using proven methods that, in the case of inductive research, are credible, reliable, and transferable or, in the case of deductive research, generalizable, objective, representative, and valid (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). Participants discussing these issues noted that researchers who adopt a qualitative design or those who question the relevance of animal experimentation or are not militant have sometimes been unfairly devalued in their epistemic authority.

There is a mini war between quantitative versus qualitative methods, which I think is silly because science is a method. If you apply the method well, it doesn’t matter what the field is, it’s done well and it’s perfect ” (participant 14). There is also the issue of the place of animals in our lives, because for me, ethics is human ethics, but also animal ethics. Then, there is a great evolution in society on the role of the animal… with the new law that came out in Quebec on the fact that animals are sensitive beings. Then, with the rise of the vegan movement, [we must ask ourselves]: “Do animals still have a place in research?” That’s a big question and it also means that there are practices that need to evolve, but sometimes there’s a disconnection between what’s expected by research ethics boards versus what’s expected in the field (participant 15). In research today, we have more and more research that is militant from an ideological point of view. And so, we have researchers, because they defend values that seem important to them, we’ll talk for example about the fight for equality and social justice. They have pressure to defend a form of moral truth and have the impression that everyone thinks like them or should do so, because they are defending a moral truth. This is something that we see more and more, namely the lack of distance between ideology and science (participant 8).

The combination or intersectionality of these inequities, which seems to be characterized by a lack of ethical support and guidance, is experienced in the highly competitive and individualistic context of research; it provides therefore the perfect recipe for researchers to experience ethical distress.

Ethical distress

The concept of “ethical distress” refers to situations in which people know what they should do to act ethically, but encounter barriers, generally of an organizational or systemic nature, limiting their power to act according to their moral or ethical values (Drolet & Ruest, 2021 ; Jameton, 1984 ; Swisher et al., 2005 ). People then run the risk of finding themselves in a situation where they do not act as their ethical conscience dictates, which in the long term has the potential for exhaustion and distress. The examples reported by participants in this study point to the fact that researchers in particular may be experiencing significant ethical distress. This distress takes place in a context of extreme competition, constant injunctions to perform, and where administrative demands are increasingly numerous and complex to complete, while paradoxically, they lack the time to accomplish all their tasks and responsibilities. Added to these demands are a lack of resources (human, ethical, and financial), a lack of support and recognition, and interpersonal conflicts.

We are in an environment, an elite one, you are part of it, you know what it is: “publish or perish” is the motto. Grants, there is a high level of performance required, to do a lot, to publish, to supervise students, to supervise them well, so yes, it is clear that we are in an environment that is conducive to distress. (…). Overwork, definitely, can lead to distress and eventually to exhaustion. When you know that you should take the time to read the projects before sharing them, but you don’t have the time to do that because you have eight that came in the same day, and then you have others waiting… Then someone rings a bell and says: “ah but there, the protocol is a bit incomplete”. Oh yes, look at that, you’re right. You make up for it, but at the same time it’s a bit because we’re in a hurry, we don’t necessarily have the resources or are able to take the time to do things well from the start, we have to make up for it later. So yes, it can cause distress (participant 9). My organization wanted me to apply in English, and I said no, and everyone in the administration wanted me to apply in English, and I always said no. Some people said: “Listen, I give you the choice”, then some people said: “Listen, I agree with you, but if you’re not [submitting] in English, you won’t be funded”. Then the fact that I am young too, because very often they will look at the CV, they will not look at the project: “ah, his CV is not impressive, we will not finance him”. This is complete nonsense. The person is capable of doing the project, the project is fabulous: we fund the project. So, that happened, organizational barriers: that happened a lot. I was not eligible for Quebec research funds (…). I had big organizational barriers unfortunately (participant 14). At the time of my promotion, some colleagues were not happy with the type of research I was conducting. I learned – you learn this over time when you become friends with people after you enter the university – that someone was against me. He had another candidate in mind, and he was angry about the selection. I was under pressure for the first three years until my contract was renewed. I almost quit at one point, but another colleague told me, “No, stay, nothing will happen”. Nothing happened, but these issues kept me awake at night (participant 16).

This difficult context for many researchers affects not only the conduct of their own research, but also their participation in research. We faced this problem in our study, despite the use of multiple recruitment methods, including more than 200 emails – of which 191 were individual solicitations – sent to potential participants by the two research assistants. REB members and organizations overseeing or supporting research (n = 17) were also approached to see if some of their employees would consider participating. While it was relatively easy to recruit REB members and research ethics experts, our team received a high number of non-responses to emails (n = 175) and some refusals (n = 5), especially by researchers. The reasons given by those who replied were threefold: (a) fear of being easily identified should they take part in the research, (b) being overloaded and lacking time, and (c) the intrusive aspect of certain questions (i.e., “Have you experienced a burnout episode? If so, have you been followed up medically or psychologically?”). In light of these difficulties and concerns, some questions in the socio-demographic questionnaire were removed or modified. Talking about burnout in research remains a taboo for many researchers, which paradoxically can only contribute to the unresolved problem of unhealthy research environments.

Returning to the research question and objective

The question that prompted this research was: What are the ethical issues in research? The purpose of the study was to describe these issues from the perspective of researchers (from different disciplines), research ethics board (REB) members, and research ethics experts. The previous section provided a detailed portrait of the ethical issues experienced by different research stakeholders: these issues are numerous, diverse and were recounted by a range of stakeholders.

The results of the study are generally consistent with the literature. For example, as in our study, the literature discusses the lack of research integrity on the part of some researchers (Al-Hidabi et al., 2018 ; Swazey et al., 1993 ), the numerous conflicts of interest experienced in research (Williams-Jones et al., 2013 ), the issues of recruiting and obtaining the free and informed consent of research participants (Provencher et al., 2014 ; Keogh & Daly, 2009 ), the sometimes difficult relations between researchers and REBs (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ), the epistemological issues experienced in research (Drolet & Ruest, accepted; Sieber 2004 ), as well as the harmful academic context in which researchers evolve, insofar as this is linked to a culture of performance, an overload of work in a context of accountability (Berg & Seeber, 2016 ; FQPPU; 2019 ) that is conducive to ethical distress and even burnout.

If the results of the study are generally in line with those of previous publications on the subject, our findings also bring new elements to the discussion while complementing those already documented. In particular, our results highlight the role of systemic injustices – be they social, distributive or epistemic – within the environments in which research is carried out, at least in Canada. To summarize, the results of our study point to the fact that the relationships between researchers and research participants are likely still to raise worrying ethical issues, despite widely accepted research ethics norms and institutionalized review processes. Further, the context in which research is carried out is not only conducive to breaches of ethical norms and instances of misbehaviour or misconduct, but also likely to be significantly detrimental to the health and well-being of researchers, as well as research assistants. Another element that our research also highlighted is the instrumentalization and even exploitation of students and research assistants, which is another important and worrying social injustice given the inevitable power imbalances between students and researchers.

Moreover, in a context in which ethical issues are often discussed from a micro perspective, our study helps shed light on both the micro- and macro-level ethical dimensions of research (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ; Glaser 1994 ). However, given that ethical issues in research are not only diverse, but also and above all complex, a broader perspective that encompasses the interplay between the micro and macro dimensions can enable a better understanding of these issues and thereby support the identification of the multiple factors that may be at their origin. Triangulating the perspectives of researchers with those of REB members and research ethics experts enabled us to bring these elements to light, and thus to step back from and critique the way that research is currently conducted. To this end, attention to socio-political elements such as the performance culture in academia or how research funds are distributed, and according to what explicit and implicit criteria, can contribute to identifying the sources of the ethical issues described above.

Contemporary culture characterized by the social acceleration

The German sociologist and philosopher Rosa (2010) argues that late modernity – that is, the period between the 1980s and today – is characterized by a phenomenon of social acceleration that causes various forms of alienation in our relationship to time, space, actions, things, others and ourselves. Rosa distinguishes three types of acceleration: technical acceleration , the acceleration of social changes and the acceleration of the rhythm of life . According to Rosa, social acceleration is the main problem of late modernity, in that the invisible social norm of doing more and faster to supposedly save time operates unchallenged at all levels of individual and collective life, as well as organizational and social life. Although we all, researchers and non-researchers alike, perceive this unspoken pressure to be ever more productive, the process of social acceleration as a new invisible social norm is our blind spot, a kind of tyrant over which we have little control. This conceptualization of the contemporary culture can help us to understand the context in which research is conducted (like other professional practices). To this end, Berg & Seeber ( 2016 ) invite faculty researchers to slow down in order to better reflect and, in the process, take care of their health and their relationships with their colleagues and students. Many women professors encourage their fellow researchers, especially young women researchers, to learn to “say No” in order to protect their mental and physical health and to remain in their academic careers (Allaire & Descheneux, 2022 ). These authors also remind us of the relevance of Kahneman’s ( 2012 ) work which demonstrates that it takes time to think analytically, thoroughly, and logically. Conversely, thinking quickly exposes humans to cognitive and implicit biases that then lead to errors in thinking (e.g., in the analysis of one’s own research data or in the evaluation of grant applications or student curriculum vitae). The phenomenon of social acceleration, which pushes the researcher to think faster and faster, is likely to lead to unethical bad science that can potentially harm humankind. In sum, Rosa’s invitation to contemporary critical theorists to seriously consider the problem of social acceleration is particularly insightful to better understand the ethical issues of research. It provides a lens through which to view the toxic context in which research is conducted today, and one that was shared by the participants in our study.

Clark & Sousa ( 2022 ) note, it is important that other criteria than the volume of researchers’ contributions be valued in research, notably quality. Ultimately, it is the value of the knowledge produced and its influence on the concrete lives of humans and other living beings that matters, not the quantity of publications. An interesting articulation of this view in research governance is seen in a change in practice by Australia’s national health research funder: they now restrict researchers to listing on their curriculum vitae only the top ten publications from the past ten years (rather than all of their publications), in order to evaluate the quality of contributions rather than their quantity. To create environments conducive to the development of quality research, it is important to challenge the phenomenon of social acceleration, which insidiously imposes a quantitative normativity that is both alienating and detrimental to the quality and ethical conduct of research. Based on our experience, we observe that the social norm of acceleration actively disfavours the conduct of empirical research on ethics in research. The fact is that researchers are so busy that it is almost impossible for them to find time to participate in such studies. Further, operating in highly competitive environments, while trying to respect the values and ethical principles of research, creates ethical paradoxes for members of the research community. According to Malherbe ( 1999 ), an ethical paradox is a situation where an individual is confronted by contradictory injunctions (i.e., do more, faster, and better). And eventually, ethical paradoxes lead individuals to situations of distress and burnout, or even to ethical failures (i.e., misbehaviour or misconduct) in the face of the impossibility of responding to contradictory injunctions.

Strengths and Limitations of the study

The triangulation of perceptions and experiences of different actors involved in research is a strength of our study. While there are many studies on the experiences of researchers, rarely are members of REBs and experts in research ethics given the space to discuss their views of what are ethical issues. Giving each of these stakeholders a voice and comparing their different points of view helped shed a different and complementary light on the ethical issues that occur in research. That said, it would have been helpful to also give more space to issues experienced by students or research assistants, as the relationships between researchers and research assistants are at times very worrying, as noted by a participant, and much work still needs to be done to eliminate the exploitative situations that seem to prevail in certain research settings. In addition, no Indigenous or gender diverse researchers participated in the study. Given the ethical issues and systemic injustices that many people from these groups face in Canada (Drolet & Goulet, 2018 ; Nicole & Drolet, in press ), research that gives voice to these researchers would be relevant and contribute to knowledge development, and hopefully also to change in research culture.

Further, although most of the ethical issues discussed in this article may be transferable to the realities experienced by researchers in other countries, the epistemic injustice reported by Francophone researchers who persist in doing research in French in Canada – which is an officially bilingual country but in practice is predominantly English – is likely specific to the Canadian reality. In addition, and as mentioned above, recruitment proved exceedingly difficult, particularly amongst researchers. Despite this difficulty, we obtained data saturation for all but two themes – i.e., exploitation of students and ethical issues of research that uses animals. It follows that further empirical research is needed to improve our understanding of these specific issues, as they may diverge to some extent from those documented here and will likely vary across countries and academic research contexts.

Conclusions

This study, which gave voice to researchers, REB members, and ethics experts, reveals that the ethical issues in research are related to several problematic elements as power imbalances and authority relations. Researchers and research assistants are subject to external pressures that give rise to integrity issues, among others ethical issues. Moreover, the current context of social acceleration influences the definition of the performance indicators valued in academic institutions and has led their members to face several ethical issues, including social, distributive, and epistemic injustices, at different steps of the research process. In this study, ten categories of ethical issues were identified, described and illustrated: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. The triangulation of the perspectives of different members (i.e., researchers from different disciplines, REB members, research ethics experts, and one research assistant) involved in the research process made it possible to lift the veil on some of these ethical issues. Further, it enabled the identification of additional ethical issues, especially systemic injustices experienced in research. To our knowledge, this is the first time that these injustices (social, distributive, and epistemic injustices) have been clearly identified.

Finally, this study brought to the fore several problematic elements that are important to address if the research community is to develop and implement the solutions needed to resolve the diverse and transversal ethical issues that arise in research institutions. A good starting point is the rejection of the corollary norms of “publish or perish” and “do more, faster, and better” and their replacement with “publish quality instead of quantity”, which necessarily entails “do less, slower, and better”. It is also important to pay more attention to the systemic injustices within which researchers work, because these have the potential to significantly harm the academic careers of many researchers, including women researchers, early career researchers, and those belonging to racialized groups as well as the health, well-being, and respect of students and research participants.

Acknowledgements

The team warmly thanks the participants who took part in the research and who made this study possible. Marie-Josée Drolet thanks the five research assistants who participated in the data collection and analysis: Julie-Claude Leblanc, Élie Beauchemin, Pénéloppe Bernier, Louis-Pierre Côté, and Eugénie Rose-Derouin, all students at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), two of whom were active in the writing of this article. MJ Drolet and Bryn Williams-Jones also acknowledge the financial contribution of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), which supported this research through a grant. We would also like to thank the reviewers of this article who helped us improve it, especially by clarifying and refining our ideas.

Competing Interests and Funding

As noted in the Acknowledgements, this research was supported financially by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Al-Hidabi, Abdulmalek, M. D., & The, P. L. (2018). Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science. In K. Arai, S. Kapoor, & R. Bhatia (eds), Future of Information and Communication Conference (FICC): Advances in Information and Communication, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (AISC), Springer, vol. 886, pp. 511–526
• Allaire, S., & Deschenaux, F. (2022). Récits de professeurs d’université à mi-carrière. Si c’était à refaire… . Presses de l’Université du Québec
• Aristotle . Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bahn S. Keeping Academic Field Researchers Safe: Ethical Safeguards. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2012; 10 :83–91. doi: 10.1007/s10805-012-9159-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balk DE. Bereavement Research Using Control Groups: Ethical Obligations and Questions. Death Studies. 1995; 19 :123–138. doi: 10.1080/07481189508252720. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauchemin, É., Côté, L. P., Drolet, M. J., & Williams-Jones, B. (2021). Conceptualizing Ethical Issues in the Conduct of Research: Results from a Critical and Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Academic Ethics , Early Online. 10.1007/s10805-021-09411-7
• Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The Slow Professor . University of Toronto Press
• Birchley G, Huxtable R, Murtagh M, Meulen RT, Flach P, Gooberman-Hill R. Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers’ perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies. BMC Medical Ethics. 2017; 18 (23):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0183-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blais, J., & Drolet, M. J. (2022). Les injustices sociales vécues en camp de réfugiés: les comprendre pour mieux intervenir auprès de personnes ayant séjourné dans un camp de réfugiés. Recueil annuel belge d’ergothérapie , 14, 37–48
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods . Allyn & Bacon
• Bouffard C. Le développement des pratiques de la génétique médicale et la construction des normes bioéthiques. Anthropologie et Sociétés. 2000; 24 (2):73–90. doi: 10.7202/015650ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human development. Experiments by nature and design . Harvard University Press
• Bruhn JG, Zajac G, Al-Kazemi AA, Prescott LD. Moral positions and academic conduct: Parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. Journal of Higher Education. 2002; 73 (4):461–493. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0033. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark, A., & Sousa (2022). It’s time to end Canada’s obsession with research quantity. University Affairs/Affaires universitaires , February 14th. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/effective-successfull-happy-academic/its-time-to-end-canadas-obsession-with-research-quantity/?utm_source=University+Affairs+e-newsletter&utm_campaign=276a847f 70-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_02_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_314bc2ee29-276a847f70-425259989
• Colnerud G. Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: An empirical study. Research Ethics. 2015; 10 (4):238–253. doi: 10.1177/1747016114552339. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison J. Dilemmas in Research: Issues of Vulnerability and Disempowerment for the Social Workers/Researcher. Journal of Social Work Practice. 2004; 18 (3):379–393. doi: 10.1080/0265053042000314447. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DePoy E, Gitlin LN. Introduction to Research. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet, M. J., & Goulet, M. (2018). Travailler avec des patients autochtones du Canada ? Perceptions d’ergothérapeutes du Québec des enjeux éthiques de cette pratique. Recueil annuel belge francophone d’ergothérapie , 10 , 25–56
• Drolet MJ, Girard K. Les enjeux éthiques de la recherche en ergothérapie: un portrait préoccupant. Revue canadienne de bioéthique. 2020; 3 (3):21–40. doi: 10.7202/1073779ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Girard K, Gaudet R. Les enjeux éthiques de l’enseignement en ergothérapie: des injustices au sein des départements universitaires. Revue canadienne de bioéthique. 2020; 3 (1):22–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Maclure J. Les enjeux éthiques de la pratique de l’ergothérapie: perceptions d’ergothérapeutes. Revue Approches inductives. 2016; 3 (2):166–196. doi: 10.7202/1037918ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Pinard C, Gaudet R. Les enjeux éthiques de la pratique privée: des ergothérapeutes du Québec lancent un cri d’alarme. Ethica – Revue interdisciplinaire de recherche en éthique. 2017; 21 (2):173–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Ruest M. De l’éthique à l’ergothérapie: un cadre théorique et une méthode pour soutenir la pratique professionnelle. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet, M. J., & Ruest, M. (accepted). Quels sont les enjeux éthiques soulevés par la recherche scientifique? In M. Lalancette & J. Luckerhoff (dir). Initiation au travail intellectuel et à la recherche . Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 18 p
• Drolet MJ, Sauvageau A, Baril N, Gaudet R. Les enjeux éthiques de la formation clinique en ergothérapie. Revue Approches inductives. 2019; 6 (1):148–179. doi: 10.7202/1060048ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fédération québécoise des professeures et des professeurs d’université (FQPPU) Enquête nationale sur la surcharge administrative du corps professoral universitaire québécois. Principaux résultats et pistes d’action. Montréal: FQPPU; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fortin MH. Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche. Méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. Montréal, QC: Chenelière éducation; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser DM. Ethical dilemmas and practical problems for the practitioner researcher. Educational Action Research. 1997; 5 (1):161–171. doi: 10.1080/09650799700200014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser, N. (2011). Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale? Reconnaissance et redistribution . La Découverte
• Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing . Oxford University Press
• Giorgi A, et al. De la méthode phénoménologique utilisée comme mode de recherche qualitative en sciences humaines: théories, pratique et évaluation. In: Poupart J, Groulx LH, Deslauriers JP, et al., editors. La recherche qualitative: enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Boucherville, QC: Gaëtan Morin; 1997. pp. 341–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giorgini V, Mecca JT, Gibson C, Medeiros K, Mumford MD, Connelly S, Devenport LD. Researcher Perceptions of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct. Accountability in Research. 2016; 22 (3):123–138. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.955607. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser, J. W. (1994). Three realms of ethics: Individual, institutional, societal. Theoretical model and case studies . Kansas Cuty, Sheed & Ward
• Godrie B, Dos Santos M. Présentation: inégalités sociales, production des savoirs et de l’ignorance. Sociologie et sociétés. 2017; 49 (1):7. doi: 10.7202/1042804ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammell KW, Carpenter C, Dyck I. Using Qualitative Research: A Practical Introduction for Occupational and Physical Therapists. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson M, Johnson NF, Auld G. Silences of ethical practice: dilemmas for researchers using social media. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2013; 19 (6):546–560. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2013.805656. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Husserl E. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Husserl E. The train of thoughts in the lectures. In: Polifroni EC, Welch M, editors. Perspectives on Philosophy of Science in Nursing. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt SD, Chonko LB, Wilcox JB. Ethical problems of marketing researchers. Journal of Marketing Research. 1984; 21 :309–324. doi: 10.1177/002224378402100308. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt MR, Carnevale FA. Moral experience: A framework for bioethics research. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011; 37 (11):658–662. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.039008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jameton, A. (1984). Nursing practice: The ethical issues . Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall
• Jarvis K. Dilemmas in International Research and the Value of Practical Wisdom. Developing World Bioethics. 2017; 17 (1):50–58. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12121. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D. Système 1, système 2: les deux vitesses de la pensée. Paris: Flammarion; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keogh B, Daly L. The ethics of conducting research with mental health service users. British Journal of Nursing. 2009; 18 (5):277–281. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2009.18.5.40539. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lierville AL, Grou C, Pelletier JF. Enjeux éthiques potentiels liés aux partenariats patients en psychiatrie: État de situation à l’Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal. Santé mentale au Québec. 2015; 40 (1):119–134. doi: 10.7202/1032386ar. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynöe N, Sandlund M, Jacobsson L. Research ethics committees: A comparative study of assessment of ethical dilemmas. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 1999; 27 (2):152–159. doi: 10.1177/14034948990270020401. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malherbe JF. Compromis, dilemmes et paradoxes en éthique clinique. Anjou: Éditions Fides; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGinn R. Discernment and denial: Nanotechnology researchers’ recognition of ethical responsibilities related to their work. NanoEthics. 2013; 7 :93–105. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0174-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills, C. W. (2017). Black Rights / White rongs. The Critique of Racial Liberalism . Oxford University Press
• Miyazaki AD, Taylor KA. Researcher interaction biases and business ethics research: Respondent reactions to researcher characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics. 2008; 81 (4):779–795. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9547-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mondain N, Bologo E. L’intentionnalité du chercheur dans ses pratiques de production des connaissances: les enjeux soulevés par la construction des données en démographie et santé en Afrique. Cahiers de recherche sociologique. 2009; 48 :175–204. doi: 10.7202/039772ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicole, M., & Drolet, M. J. (in press). Fitting transphobia and cisgenderism in occupational therapy, Occupational Therapy Now
• Pope KS, Vetter VA. Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. The American Psychologist. 1992; 47 (3):397–411. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.3.397. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Provencher V, Mortenson WB, Tanguay-Garneau L, Bélanger K, Dagenais M. Challenges and strategies pertaining to recruitment and retention of frail elderly in research studies: A systematic review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2014; 59 (1):18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2014.03.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice . Harvard University Press
• Resnik DB, Elliott KC. The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science. Accountability in Research. 2016; 23 (1):31–46. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosa, H. (2010). Accélération et aliénation. Vers une théorie critique de la modernité tardive . Paris, Découverte
• Sen, A. K. (2011). The Idea of Justice . The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
• Sen, A. K. (1995). Inegality Reexaminated . Oxford University Press
• Sieber JE. Empirical Research on Research Ethics. Ethics & Behavior. 2004; 14 (4):397–412. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1404_9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigmon ST. Ethical practices and beliefs of psychopathology researchers. Ethics & Behavior. 1995; 5 (4):295–309. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0504_1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Lewis KS. Ethical Problems in Academic Research. American Scientist. 1993; 81 (6):542–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swisher LL, Arsalanian LE, Davis CM. The realm-individual-process-situation (RIPS) model of ethical decision-making. HPA Resource. 2005; 5 (3):3–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) (2018). Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . Government of Canada, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2018-en-interactive-final.pdf
• Thomas SP, Pollio HR. Listening to Patients: A Phenomenological Approach to Nursing Research and Practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiegand DL, Funk M. Consequences of clinical situations that cause critical care nurses to experience moral distress. Nursing Ethics. 2012; 19 (4):479–487. doi: 10.1177/0969733011429342. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams-Jones B, Potvin MJ, Mathieu G, Smith E. Barriers to research on research ethics review and conflicts of interest. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 2013; 35 (5):14–20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the Politics of difference . Princeton University Press

The Hastings Center

Ethics & Human Research

Ethics & human research.

Should Children Be Included in Human Challenge Studies?

Ethics in Mental Health Research with Haitian Migrants: Lessons from a Community-Based Study in Santiago, Chile

What Is “Key Information”? Consideration of the Reasons People Do or Do Not Take Part in Research

Translational Research and Health Equity: Gene Therapies for Sickle Cell Disease as a Case Study

Navigating University Openness in Research Policy Inconsistent with Indigenous Data Sovereignty: A Case Analysis

Moving to the Middle Ground: Redefining Genomic Utility to Expand Understanding of Familial Benefit

Rapid Review of Therapy Protocols for Public Health Emergencies

Participant Misrepresentation in Online Focus Groups: Red Flags and Proactive Measures

Ethics & Human Research (formerly IRB: Ethics & Human Research ) aims to foster critical analysis of issues in science and health care that have implications for human biomedical and behavioral research, including developments that bring new challenges to existing ethical, regulatory, and policy frameworks governing research with humans in the United States and elsewhere. Six issues of the research ethics journal are published each year, containing an assortment of commentaries, case studies, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews.

To access supporting information for articles in E&HR , such as tables, figures, and appendices that do not appear in the journal itself, see this page .

For prior issues of IRB: Ethics & Human Research, please visit Jstor.org .

Authors include experts in research ethics who come from a wide range of academic disciplines and professions, researchers who conduct biomedical and behavioral research, and policy-makers. We welcome submissions from new authors. E&HR ’s readership includes ethics committee members, institutional leaders, researchers, and scholars from many academic disciplines.

Our submissions guidelines can be found here .

For permissions, contact Wiley Online Library .

ISSN 2578-2355 print; ISSN 2578-2363 online

Publisher: Wiley

• What Is Bioethics?
• For the Media
• Hastings Center News
• Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
• Hastings Center Report
• Focus Areas
• Ethics & Human Research
• Bioethics Careers & Education
• Hastings Bioethics Forum
• FAQs on Human Genomics
• Bioethics Briefings
• Books by Hastings Scholars
• Special Reports
• Ways To Give
• Why We Give
• Gift Planning
• Sign up for Updates

Upcoming Events

Previous events, receive our newsletter.

• Terms of Use