Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics in Laboratory Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science

Part of the book series: Success in Academic Surgery ((SIAS))

  • 605 Accesses

Abstract

Ethics in laboratory research has become a formalized training course, and the reasons for this are multiple. Given the multiple unique pressures experienced by surgeons, the concepts taught in these ethic courses are particularly relevant. Here the concepts will be discussed in a case-based format including issues highly relevant to surgeons.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Resnik DB. What is ethics in research & why is it important? 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Watson JD, Crick FH. Genetical implications of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid. Nature. 1953;171:964–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Straus SE, Chatur F, Taylor M. Issues in the mentor-mentee relationship in academic medicine: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2009;84:135–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pawlik TM, Platteborze N, Souba WW. Ethics and surgical research: what should guide our behavior? J Surg Res. 1999;87:263–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. National Academies of Sciences E and Medicine. Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Macrina FL. Scientific integrity. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brewster LP, Greisler HP. There may be nothing new under the sun, but this is ridiculous. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52:1697–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Blog BLC. Integrity is who you are when no-one’s looking. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Halloran PF, Reeve J, Kaplan B. Lies, damn lies, and statistics: the perils of the P value. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:10–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wangensteen OH. The role of the experimental laboratory in the training of surgeons. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1960;(Suppl 253):26–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Narahari AK, Mehaffey JH, Hawkins RB, Charles EJ, Baderdinni PK, Chandrabhatla AS, Kocan JW, Jones RS, Upchurch GR Jr, Kron IL, Kern JA, Ailawadi G. Surgeon scientists are disproportionately affected by declining NIH funding rates. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;226:474–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Thiese MS, Walker S, Lindsey J. Truths, lies, and statistics. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:4117–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505:612–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kandel JJ. Serendipity: translational research, high quality care, and the children’s hospital. Jay and Margie Grosfeld Lecture. J Pediatr Surg. 2014;49:19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bowen A, Casadevall A. Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:11335–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lo B, Field MJ, editors. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Elks ML. Conflict of interest and the physician-researcher. J Lab Clin Med. 1995;126:19–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. https://www.mskcc.org/press-releases/mskcc-announces-conflict-interest-task-force.

  19. Lopez J, Samaha G, Purvis TE, Siegel G, Jabbari J, Ahmed R, Milton J, Tufaro AP, May JW Jr, Dorafshar AH. The accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by plastic surgeons and industry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:1592–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: a possible role of editors. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22:169–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mencken HL. Prejudices: second series. New York: Knopf; 1920.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Clevenger RRBJ, Talcott M, et al. Surgery. In: Weichbrod RH, Thompson GAH, Norton JN, editors. Management of animal care and use programs in research, education, and testing. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  23. DeGrazia D, Beauchamp TL. Guest editorial: Reassessing animal research ethics. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24:385–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. DeGrazia D. The ethics of animal research: what are the prospects for agreement? Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1999;8:23–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Adashi EY, Walters LB, Menikoff JA. The Belmont Report at 40: reckoning with time. Am J Public Health. 2018;108:1345–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Annas GJ. Beyond Nazi war crimes experiments: the voluntary consent requirement of the Nuremberg Code at 70. Am J Public Health. 2018;108:42–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moreno JD, Schmidt U, Joffe S. The Nuremberg Code 70 years later. JAMA. 2017;318:795–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Affairs ACoEaJ. AMA J Ethics. 2015;17:1136–41.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fanelli D, Costas R, Lariviere V. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0127556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, GA, USA

    Sidd Dalal

  2. Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Luke Brewster

  3. Surgery and Research Sections, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Decatur, GA, USA

    Luke Brewster

  4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Luke Brewster

Authors
  1. Sidd Dalal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luke Brewster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luke Brewster .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Gregory Kennedy

  2. Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, University of Tennessee Health Science Centre, Memphis, TN, USA

    Ankush Gosain

  3. UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Melina Kibbe

  4. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Scott A. LeMaire

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dalal, S., Brewster, L. (2019). Ethics in Laboratory Research. In: Kennedy, G., Gosain, A., Kibbe, M., LeMaire, S. (eds) Success in Academic Surgery: Basic Science. Success in Academic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14644-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14644-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14643-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14644-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation