SLE761: Ethics in Research and Scientific Misconduct

This essay delves into the critical realm of research ethics, emphasizing its significance in upholding the integrity and validity of scientific investigations. It outlines the core ethical principles that researchers must adhere to, such as obtaining informed consent, protecting participant privacy, and ensuring data integrity. The essay examines how these principles are monitored and enforced in Australia, highlighting the role of the ARC and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Furthermore, it explores a research area focused on social media privacy issues and their ethical implications, particularly concerning youth. The essay also investigates the concept of scientific misconduct, presenting a detailed case study of an Australian science journalist's admitted duplication of images in her PhD thesis. The essay analyzes the breaches of ethical conduct and the importance of maintaining research integrity to foster trust and credibility within the scientific community. Finally, the essay underscores the importance of adhering to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, which provides a framework for ethical research practices, and the consequences of non-compliance, thereby promoting responsible and trustworthy research outcomes.

Ethics in Research
Research ethics is closely linked to the ethical principles of social responsibility. The research
ethics govern the standards of conduct for scientific investigators. It is vital to adhere to the
ethical principles with the motive to protect the rights, dignity, and welfare of the research
participants. The paper aims to present ethics in research and how it is important to be
considered by the researcher. Along with this, it also includes the ways through which the ethics
in research is monitored in Australia. Furthermore, research areas are identified and key ethical
issues are understood. The paper is divided into two parts in which the first part is related to the
ethics in research and the second part is about the scientific misconduct case study. The scientific
misconduct is explained with the help of the case study which is including the ethical
considerations and the participation of people in the study.
Research ethics are vital while researching due to a different number of reasons. The researchers
are the one who promotes the motive of the research which include expanding the knowledge
and support the values for the collaborative work like mutual respect as well as fairness (WHO,
2020). In research, the meaning of the ethic is aligned with the accomplishment of the research
validly and ethically which means that the research will be free from any kind of loopholes.
In the research, ethical considered can be specified as one of the most vital segments of the
research. The researcher needs to consider some of the ethical principles while considering the
research which includes research participants should not be subjected to create the impact in any
ways whatsoever. The investigator needs to respect for the dignity of the study research
participants that need to be prioritised (Research methodology, 2020). One of the principles of
the ethics is to get the full consent which needs to be obtained from all the participants before the

study. In the field of the research, protection of the privacy of the research participants is
required to be ensured for study. In the study, this has been found that while conducting the
research, there are various reasons because of which it becomes important for the researcher to
adhere to the ethical norms that are available in the research. It has been determined that one of
the major reasons is that to permit the researcher to conduct the research systematically without
any loophole. The study has resulted in the different types of the ethical concerns that are linked
to the violation of the copyright act, plagiarism and other activity that might lead to the
fracturing of the information in respect to the secondary data collection method (ACFID, 2017).
Ethics in the research is vital as it helps the research to select suitable behaviour with the motive
to complete the study systematically. This is the way through which they can ensure that all the
information that has been gathered is reliable and valid as it doesn’t have the involvement of the
researcher for getting reliable outcomes. In Australia, there is a presence of the ARC who is
majorly committed to the highest standards of the integrity in entire aspects of the research that it
provides the supports. It has been found that the ARC-funded research takes place with a suitable
level of legal, ethical, and professional frameworks, obligations and other standards (Australian
Government, 2020). This is one of the ways through which the ARC promotes the ethical
research which include the adherence of all the principles that are issued by the council. Thus,
this shows the ways through which Australia monitors the ethics of the research. In the research,
it has been found that June 2018, ARC, NHMRC and other universities of Australia issue the
Australian code for the responsible code of the research 2018 and also the guide which provide
the right guidance to the researcher (Australian Government, 2020).
In the dynamic environment, the role of social media is evolving as it is becoming a major part
of their day to day lifestyle. Thus, the selected research area is related to social media and how

they are leading privacy issues. The selected research is “Impact of social media privacy issues
on the usage of social networking sites by youth”. The topic might include some of the key
ethical issues which are important to be undertaken. The topic includes the privacy issues on
social media platform which will affect the use of these social media sites by youth. In this
research, there is a need to survey the youth to understand the fact that privacy issues affect them
or not. The research topic includes the issues of ethics like youth details and the types of privacy
breach they face (Gross, 2016). Along with this, it includes views about social integrity.
Accordingly, this research includes the high possibility of the participant’s confidentiality,
integrity, consent and other ethical issues which might occur.
It has been found that the researcher need to maintain the research integrity is vital because it
leads to the rise in the trust and trust is considered at the heart of the research process. While
conducting the survey and getting the results for the specific research then they need to pay the
attention to the rules, regulations, as well as guidance that is majorly required to be considered as
per the Australia research council (Breen, 2016). In this research area, when the participants
present their views about the social media privacy issues and how it affected them then the
researcher is required to present these views with full integrity (Ryen, 2016). The researcher
needs to keep all these details in integrity which include presenting the information in the same
manner which will show the level of trust.
At the time of conducting the survey from the youth about the social media privacy issue, there is
a possibility of the ethical issue of confidentiality (Tiidenberg, 2020). It becomes vital for the
researcher to maintain the secrecy of the participants as per the guide. There will be no
disclosure from the researcher side that who all are the particular person selected for the research
which will help them to avoid the ethical issue. However, the breach of the confidentially takes

place when the audience gets to know who has presented the views about the concerned research
that impact of social media privacy issues on the usage of social networking sites by youth.
In this research, the researcher ensures to survey the youth because they know that it will be real
data that will be essential to make the research realistic. This research will help the social
networking sites to understand that they don’t need to force or pressurized to any of the
candidates for providing the accurate reverts that are a concern to the present research study. The
investigator should only select the participants who want to participant in the survey where they
will provide the views about the privacy issues on the social networking sites and how this issue
reduce their usage and leads to trust issues (Gearon and Parsons, 2019). Thus, this shows that
there is a high possibility of the ethical issues in the concern research area which might influence
the reliability and credibility of the research area. The investigator ensures that they follow the
guidelines of the research which makes their research paper credible enough.
In the research, another element which is required to be considered by the researcher is scientific
misconduct. The term scientific misconduct is a violation of the standard codes of scholarly
conduct and also the ethical behaviour in the publication of professional scientific research. In
the research, this has been found that scientific misconduct can occur due to a wide number of
reasons which include fabricates or false data presented by the researcher or plagiarizes the
ideas, information in the report (Gray, 2019). The activity is committed intentionally by the
researcher which is considered as sufficient evidence. One of the major causes of the scientific
misconduct that has been determined is linked to the Hwang Woo-Suk in South Korea which is a
perfect example of a well-defined piece of the fraud. The research presented by the Hwang Woo-
Suk in South Korea consists of the fabrication of the information, conflicts of the interest and
also the ethical consideration that include the coercion of the participations and many others.

This case is considered as one of the most frequent cases which have been studied when it comes
to scientific misconduct (Chang, 2017).
The case that has been selected for the analysis is related to the controversial Australian science
journalist who admitted for duplication in her PhD thesis. The controversy of the research shows
that the three images were duplicated which were the part of their PhD thesis with the practice
outside experts agreed was acceptable. In the research, this has been found that considering the
part of the inquiry, the University of the Adelaide convened a panel of the expert who examined
the 17 allegations related to the duplication or the manipulations in a thesis presented by the
Maryanne Demasi’s (Retraction Watch, 2018). The controversy shows that concerning the
allegation about the thesis of the Demasi’s the real or originals of the image within the question
were long gone so in 14 instances that an expert summarized that it was not imaginable to
determine that the duplication occurred or not. However, in the three instances, she accepted that
it was a duplication of the images. Thus, this is considered as one of the major misconduct which
is deliberately done by the researcher.
In addition to this, last year, the Journal of the Biological Chemistry presented an expression of
the concern for one of the Demasi’s paper that took place from her 2004 thesis, noting the
credible concerns that elevated related to some of the data as well as conclusions in the present
article (Dunlop, 2018). Along with this, as per the last year, the Journal Arthritis and
rheumatology printed this paper in 2004, which told that they got an inquiry from the University
of the Adelaide and it might publish a correction or retraction pending the conclusions that have
reached by the university. On this case, both the JBC and Arthritis & Rheumatology were
approached but there was no response.

In Australia, one such measure is linked with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct
of Research. It is considered as one of the established frameworks that are responsible for the
research conduct that offers a foundation for the high-quality study, credibility, and trust of the
community in the research endeavour (Breen, 2016). The problem is related to the Australian
model of the self-regulation that is an issue because of the conflict of the interest. The
researchers of Australia are no better or worse than any of those from the other countries but
unlike other countries, Australia does not have a national office to deal with the concerns. The
Australia code for the Responsible Conduct of Research has categories the breaches into three
major parts which include Part 1: Plagiarism, Part 2: Falsification and Part 3: Fabrication. All
these part of the misconduct belongs to series 3 which is related to the ethical misconduct. In this
case, this has been found that there is the presence of the duplication of the images which is
considered as one of the ethical misconduct (Vaux, Brooks and Gandevia, 2018). Considering
the case, there is a breach of the falsification code of conduct provided by the research council of
Australia. The falsification is referred to as the manipulating the material of the research, its
related equipment’s or processes as it is changing or omitting the data or results like that the
research is not accurately represented in the record of the research.
In the research, while determining the correct breach that has been done it has been found that it
was difficult to distinguish fabrication and falsification. Fabrication refers to as the making up
data so reporting on the experiments that never happened. However, on the other hand, the
falsification is different in that an experiment might have taken place but some measurements
were altered. Considering these definitions, both the terms are very different but when it comes
to the classification of the duplication of the image it remains difficult to analyse the type of
misconduct that took place. The duplication of the image to represent the two various experiment

could be interpreted as either falsification which means the changing of data or fabrication is like
making up the data (Australian Government, 2020). For this Maryanne Demasi’s case, there is a
falsification of the data. In the category of falsification, there is one of the categories of the
duplicating the images are considered as one of the scientific misconduct which needs the
adherence of the researcher. Thus, this is clear that there is a breach of the falsification and the
researcher has presented the duplicated image.
At the end of the paper, this has can be summarized that ethics plays a vital role in the research.
The ethics in the research govern the standards of the conduct for the scientific researchers. It is
essential to abide by all the ethical principles with the motive to safeguard the dignity, rights, as
well as the welfare of the participants involved in the research. The major ethics that have been
considering in the research include the principles of the beneficence, justice, and autonomy that
are central to the ethical review. The paper shows the importance of ethics in the research and the
way the researcher abides with it. In addition to this, it has been found that Australia is managing
ethics in research. It has been summarized that some bodies monitor the research which includes
ARC, NHMRC, and other universities of Australia in Australia. Thus, the country has a separate
code of ethics that is abiding by all the researchers. Furthermore, the paper includes the
discussion of the scientific misconduct which generally takes place in the research. The scientific
misconduct is explained further with the help of the case study of the Demasi’s paper who
presented the duplication of the images in the research. The duplication of the images is
considered as the breach of the research of the falsification. This misconduct shows that the
researcher didn’t abide by all the research. It is suggested to the researcher that they should abide
by all regulations related to the research which will help them to prevent any kind of misconduct.

References
ACFID (2017) Principles and Guidelines [Online]. Available from:
https://acfid.asn.au/sites/site.acfid/files/resource_document/ACFID_RDI%20Principles%20and
%20Guidelines%20for%20ethical%20research12-07-2017.pdf [Accessed on 2nd April 2020]
Australian Government (2020) Australian Code For The Responsible Conduct Of Research
[Online]. Available from:
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/reports/australian-code-responsible-
conduct-research.pdf [Accessed on 2nd April 2020]
Australian Government (2020) Codes and Guidelines [Online]. Available from:
https://www.arc.gov.au/policies-strategies/policy/codes-and-guidelines [Accessed on 2nd April
2020]
Australian Government (2020) New Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
released [Online]. Available from: https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/media/network-
messages/new-australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-released [Accessed on 2nd April
2020]
Breen, K.J. (2016) Research misconduct: time for a re‐think?. Internal medicine journal, 46(6),
pp.728-733.
Chang, Y. (2017) Whistleblowing in South Korea: The Case of Woo Suk Hwang.
In Whistleblowing in the World (pp. 23-35). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Dunlop, R. (2018) Demasi cleared, but images in science continue to attract intense scrutiny
[Online]. Available from: https://theconversation.com/demasi-cleared-but-images-in-science-
continue-to-attract-intense-scrutiny-84772 [Accessed on 2nd April 2020]
Gearon, L.F. and Parsons, S. (2019) Research ethics in the securitised university. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 17(1), pp.73-93.
Gray, D.E. (2019) Doing research in the business world. Sage Publications Limited.
Gross, C. (2016) Scientific misconduct. Annual review of psychology, 67, pp.693-711.
Research methodology (2020) Ethical Considerations [Online]. Available from: https://research-
methodology.net/research-methodology/ethical-considerations/ [Accessed on 2nd April 2020]
Retraction Watch (2018) Controversial Australian science journalist admits to duplication in her
PhD thesis [Online]. Available from: https://retractionwatch.com/2018/05/09/controversial-
australian-science-journalist-admits-to-duplication-in-her-phd-thesis/#more-65385 [Accessed on
2nd April 2020]
Ryen, A. (2016) Research ethics and qualitative research. Qualitative research, pp.31-48.
Tiidenberg, K. (2020) Research ethics, vulnerability, and trust on the internet. Second
International Handbook of Internet Research, pp.569-583.
Vaux, D., Brooks, P. and Gandevia, S. (2018) Weakened code risks Australia’s reputation for
research integrity [Online]. Available from: https://theconversation.com/weakened-code-risks-
australias-reputation-for-research-integrity-98622 [Accessed on 2nd April 2020]

WHO (2020) Ethical standards and procedures for research with human beings [Online].
Available from: https://www.who.int/ethics/research/en/ [Accessed on 2nd April 2020]