SIM422 Activity 3: Ethics in Research Example Solution

Ethics in research plays a vital role in protecting human subjects from potential damage or exploitation. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is responsible for examining study proposals to verify that they are ethical. Researchers must understand the history of research, norms, and ethical concepts such as respect for humans, beneficence, and justice, especially when working with vulnerable populations. Furthermore, researchers must examine the importance of different populations in the study and explain their inclusion while ensuring that ethical considerations are satisfied.

Compliance with regulations and legislation governing the use of human subjects in research is at the forefront of legal considerations. These regulations protect participants from danger or exploitation. They include informed consent, confidentiality, and data protection requirements (Sng et al., 2019). However, ethical issues go beyond mere legal compliance to guarantee that research is carried out in a morally responsible manner. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews research proposals to ensure they meet legal and ethical requirements. The IRB is in charge of assessing the risks and benefits of research, ensuring that the informed consent process is adequate, and protecting the rights and welfare of participants (Nesom et al., 2019). The IRB is crucial in supporting ethical research procedures and protecting human subjects from potential damage or exploitation, while legal considerations serve as a minimum standard that must be satisfied in order to meet regulatory obligations.

There were no regulations addressing the ethical use of human subjects in research prior to the 1900s. On December 9, 1946, an American military tribunal initiated criminal proceedings against 23 top German physicians and administrators for their voluntary participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Among the allegations was that German doctors conducted medical tests on thousands of concentration camp inmates without permission. As a result of these tests, most subjects died or were severely injured (Weindling, 2022). This resulted in the Nuremberg Code being created in 1948. The history of research has shown that certain populations, such as prisoners, pregnant women, and children, have been subjected to unethical research practices.

Adherence to codes and ethical principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice is essential when conducting research with vulnerable populations. Respect for persons involves treating participants as autonomous agents capable of making informed decisions about their participation in research (Varkey, 2021). Beneficence involves maximizing benefits while minimizing risks to participants. Justice ensures that research benefits and burdens are fairly distributed among participants.

Recognizing the unique needs of vulnerable populations such as prisoners or individuals with mental illness is vital when conducting research involving the human subject. The IRB must take extra precautions to minimize the risks to these populations and protect their rights and welfare (Nesom et al., 2019). The IRB must also evaluate the potential benefits of research for these populations and ensure that they are not exploited for the benefit of others.

The study population should be diverse to ensure that research findings are generalizable and applicable to various people (Burchett et al., 2020). However, it is critical to recognize the distinct needs and vulnerabilities of various populations, particularly vulnerable populations such as ethnic and racial minorities, people with disabilities, and people with limited access to healthcare. Ethical principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice must be implemented to guarantee that participants’ rights and welfare are safeguarded when doing research with various communities. Following ethical principles ensures that research is conducted courteously, responsibly, and useful for all participants.

References

Burchett, H. E. D., Kneale, D., Blanchard, L., & Thomas, J. (2020). More than just differences in population or setting alone is required when assessing generalizability. Trials, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4178-6

Nesom, G. L., Petrof, I., & Moore, T. M. (2019). Operational characteristics of institutional review boards (irbs) in the United States. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 10(4), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2019.1670276

Sng, B., Yip, C., & Han, N.-L. (2019).&nbs