Who is watching the watchdogs?

Notable ethical issue in the article is the lack of adequate informed consent. The common ethical principle of free and informed consent demands that the institution conducting the research supplies the human subject under the study with adequate information relating to the nature of the research including the risk involved (Gorski, 2009). Investigation indicate that Ellen Rochea healthy, a 24 old woman, a volunteer in an asthma study, was not supplied with sufficient information relating to the nature of the study by the research institution- Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center. The researcher did not inform Ellen that the substance administered contained traces of pulmonary toxic effects thus raising the ethical issue of concealment of information.

How this issue is important to the conduct of research

This ethical issue is important to the conduct of research because it does not adhere to the stipulated ethical principle of free and informed consent. This principle was designed to guide researchers in the planning and conduct of research in order to ensure the researchers adhere to the standards, aspiration and values of research community (HHS. gov, 2012). This means that this ethical issue at hand can force various stakeholders to disown the findings of the research. The issue is important for the conduct of research in the sense that it seeks to address the need to protect the rights and welfare of the human subjects and reduce the risk of harm to the participant during study. This ethical issue is also important because it may deny a research institution from attracting sponsors.

Problems that might arise if a researcher did not address this issue

If the researcher – Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center does not address this issue they should expect to be considered unprofessional. Such connotation is harmful to the image of the research institution and its attractiveness for future experiments. Failure on the part of the research to address this ethical issue can lead to withdrawal of sponsors and willingness of funding bodies to sponsor to fund future projects. There is high probability of Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center facing moral disproval from the regulatory bodies overseeing conduct of studies using human subjects. Much severe implication of failure of the researcher to address the ethical issue involves institution sanctions an aspect that will isolate the researcher from engaging in experimental studies involving human subjects (Sharp, 2004).

How this issue is relevant to researchers in my discipline

The fact that my discipline is nonprofit does not exclude researchers from abiding to the ethical requirements of research that involves human participants. This claim can be justified by the fact that every research facility must present a Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) to the agency funding the research (Alvino, 2003). FWA is a contractual obligation, which binds research facilities engaged in studies involving human participant to Common Rule provisions irrespective of whether they are federally or privately funded. The fact the Common Rule provisions are meant to protect the rights and welfare of the research participants through promotion of adherence to ethical principles makes the issue relevant to researchers in my discipline. In other words, the issue is touching on the third requirement of the Common Rule.

How researchers in my discipline address this issue

The researchers in my discipline have myriad of was which they use to address this issue. To begin with, the researchers always ensure that they supply the research subjects with sufficient information regarding the nature of the study. It is a common requirement that all researchers must disclose to the subjects the purpose of the research, the potential benefits as well as any foreseeable risk on the participant (Gorski, 2009). The researchers in my discipline always take into consideration six important factors, which include the sufficiency of informed consent, risks involved, privacy, and vulnerability of the human subjects under study, equity and inappropriate incentives. This means that researchers in my discipline often engage in precautionary measures before carrying the research to ensure that human subjects are not exposed to any form of risk.

My thoughts on how this ethical issue might affect my conduct as a researcher

This ethical issue might negatively affect my conduct as a research in number of ways. My reputation will be in jeopardy owing to commission of this ethical issue taking into consideration that I will appear unprofessional. Additionally this ethical issue will tarnish my image as unethical researcher and such an image can damage my career. This ethical issue can lead to different individual sanctions by the regulatory body. It is common knowledge that various regulatory bodies concerned with studies that involve human subjects can let gross unethical acts unpunished. There is also likelihood of facing legal charges for negligent action in case the subject involved in the study can succeed in proving that I owed her a duty of care and breached that obligation.

References

Alvino, L. (2003). Who’s watching the watchdogs? Responding to the erosion of research ethics by enforcing promises. Columbia Law Review, 103(4), 893.

Gorski, D. (2009). Human subjects protections and research ethics: Where the rubber hits the road for science-based medicine. Science Based Medicine. Retrieved October 18 2012 from: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/human-subjects-protections-and-research-ethics-why-randomized-clinical-trials-cant-always-be-done/

Sharp, R. (2004). Ethical Issues in the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research. Retrieved October 18 2012 from: http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ncstate/biomedical.htm

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services . (HHS. gov). (2012). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. The Belmont Report. Retrieved October 18 2012 from: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html