Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 541–548 | Cite as

Educating about biomedical research ethics

  • Bratislav StankovicEmail author
  • Mirjana Stankovic
Scientific Contribution


This article examines the global and worsening problem of research misconduct as it relates to bio-medico-legal education. While research misconduct has serious legal implications, few adequate legal remedies exist to deal with it. With respect to teaching, research ethics education should be mandatory for biomedical students and physicians. Although teaching alone will not prevent misconduct, it promotes integrity, accountability, and responsibility in research. Policies and law enforcement should send a clear message that researchers should adhere to the highest standards of ethics in research. It is vital that researchers and physicians understand basic aspects of law and the legal system in order to develop understanding of the medico-legal issues not just in the legal context, but with a sound grounding in ethics, social and theoretical contexts so that they can practice good medicine. Routine and holistic research ethics education across the curriculum for medical students and resident physicians, and continuing medical education for practicing doctors, are probably the best ways to accomplish this goal.


Research ethics Scientific misconduct Research misconduct Teaching ethics Responsible conduct of research 



This work is supported under the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft.


  1. Antes, A.L., S.T. Murphy, E.P. Waples, M.D. Mumford, R.P. Brown, S. Connelly, and L.D. Devenport. 2009. A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior 19(5): 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antes, A.L., X. Wang, M.D. Mumford, R.P. Brown, S. Connelly, and L.D. Devenport. 2010. Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Academic Medicine 85(3): 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, P. 2008. Crime and punishment in the lab. Nature. doi: 10.1038/news.2008.1015.Google Scholar
  4. Benatar, S.R., and P.S. Singer. 2000. A new look at international research ethics. BMJ 321(7264): 824–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouville, M. 2008. Crime and punishment in scientific research. Physics and Society: arXiv:0803.4058 [physics.soc-ph].Google Scholar
  6. Brand, D. and J.M. Nash. 1987. It was too good to be true. Time, June 1, 1987, at 59 (quoting Dr. Robert Sprague, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign).Google Scholar
  7. Broad, W.J. 1980. Would-be academician pirates papers. Science 208(4451): 1438–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broad, W.J., and N. Wade. 1982. Betrayers of the Truth. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  9. Claudot, F., F. Alla, X. Ducrocq, and H. Coudane. 2007. Teaching ethics in Europe. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(8): 491–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique. 2004. Opinion on education in medical ethics, No. 84, April 29, 2004, available at Accessed 4 April 2014.
  11. Consensus statement by teachers of medical ethics and law in UK medical schools. 1998. Teaching medical ethics and law within medical education: a model for the UK core curriculum. Journal of Medical Ethics 24(3): 188–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cossins, D. 2012. A decade of misconduct. The Scientist, November 27, 2012, available at Accessed 20 December 2013.
  13. Dalton, R. 1997. The Angelides Affair. Houston: Houston Press.Google Scholar
  14. David, A. 2003. Paper retracted as co-author admits forgery. Nature 421(6925): 775.Google Scholar
  15. Deer, B. 2011. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ 342: c5347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eichenwald, K. and G. Kolata. 1999. A doctor’s drug trials turn into fraud. N.Y. Times, May 17, 1999, at 1.Google Scholar
  17. Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenbaum, D. 2009. Research fraud: methods for dealing with an issue that negatively impacts society‘s view of science. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 10: 61.Google Scholar
  19. Hasty, S. 2001. Firm Fined for Selling Unapproved AIDS Test. AIDS Weekly, May 21, 2001, available at. Accessed 4 April 2014.
  20. Hixson, J. 1976. The Patchwork Mouse. Garden City: Anchor Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hvistendahl, M. 2013. China’s publication bazaar. Science 342(6162): 1035–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hwang, W.S., S.I. Roh, et al. 2005. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science 308(5729): 1777-1783, erratum in Hwang, W.S., S.I. Roh, et al. 2005. Science 310(5755): 1769, retraction in Kennedy, D. 2006. Science 311(5759): 335.Google Scholar
  23. Jagsi, R., and L.S. Lehmann. 2004. The ethics of medical education. BMJ 329: 332–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohn, A. 1986. False Prophets. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Kulynych, J. 1998. Intent to deceive: mental state and scienter in the new uniform federal definition of scientific misconduct. Stanford Technology Law Review 2(1998): 2.Google Scholar
  26. LaFollette, M.C. 2000. The evolution of the “scientific misconduct” issue: an historical overview. Experimental Biology and Medicine 224(4): 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manson, H. 2008. The need for medical ethics education in family medicine training. Medical Ethics 40(9): 658–664.Google Scholar
  28. May, D.R., and M.T. Luth. 2013. The effectiveness of ethics education: a quasi-experimental field study. Science and Engineering Ethics 19(2): 545–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Opel, D.J., D.S. Diekema, and E.K. Marcuse. 2011. Assuring research integrity in the wake of Wakefield. BMJ 2011(342): d2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parrish, D.M. 1998. The federal government and scientific misconduct proceedings, past, present, and future as seen through the Thereza Imanishi-Kari case. Journal of College & University Law 24: 581.Google Scholar
  31. Plemmons, D.K., S.A. Brody, and M.W. Kalichman. 2006. Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12(3): 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Powell, S.T., M.A. Allison, and M.W. Kalichman. 2007. Effectiveness of a responsible conduct of research course: a preliminary study. Science and Engineering Ethics 13(2): 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Resnik, D.B., A. Shamoo, and S. Krimsky. 2006. Fraudulent human embryonic stem cell research in South Korea: lessons learned. Accountability in Research 13(1): 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Resnik, D.B. 2011. What is ethics in research & why is it important? NIEHS‐NIH, available at Accessed 4 April 2014.
  35. Resnik, D.B. 2014. Editorial: Does RCR education make students more ethical, and is this the right question to ask? Accountability in Research 21(4): 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Riis, P. 2001. Scientific dishonesty: European reflections. Journal of Clinical Pathology 54(1): 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schrag, B. 2008. Teaching research ethics: changing the culture of science. Teaching Ethics 8: 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shamoo, A., and D. Resnik. 2009. Responsible Conduct of Research, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Silverberg, L.L. 2000. Survey of medical ethics in US medical schools: a descriptive study. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 100(6): 373–378.Google Scholar
  40. Stankovic, B. 2004. Pulp fiction: reflections on scientific misconduct. Wisconsin Law Review 2004: 975–1013.Google Scholar
  41. Steen, R.G., A. Casadevall, and F.C. Fang. 2013. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE 8(7): e68397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swaminathan, V., and M. Avery. 2012. FDA enforcement of criminal liability for clinical investigator fraud. Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal 4: 325–356.Google Scholar
  43. Wallis, C. 1983. Medicine: fraud in a Harvard lab. Time, February 28, 1983.Google Scholar
  44. Weiss, R.W., G.G. Gill, and C.A. Hudis. 2001. An on-site audit of the South African trial of high-dose chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and associated publications. Journal of Clinical Oncology 19(11): 2771–2777.Google Scholar
  45. White, C. 2007. Software makes it easier for journals to spot image manipulation. BMJ 334(7594): 607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zuckerman, H. 1984. Norms and deviant behavior in science. Science, Technology and Human Values 9(1): 7–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Information Science and Technology “St. Paul the Apostle”OhridMacedonia
  2. 2.Ministry of Education and ScienceSkopjeMacedonia

Personalised recommendations