Page 87 - Academic and Research Book_WEB

Gunsalus and Robinson (2018), in an article on research misconduct, have coined the mnemonic
TRAGEDIES (Temptation, Rationalization, Ambition, Group and authority pressure, Entitlement,
Deception, Incrementalism, Embarrassment, and Stupid systems). These are the factors that can lead
scientists astray from the straight path that they should follow. Educating younger colleagues about
the existence of these undisguised, almost transparent, devils is the first step to prevent research
misconduct and further tragedy.

Codes of Ethics

To address these issues, various codes of ethics have been established. Just some of these include the
Nuremberg code, Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont report and the ICMR guidelines (Timms,
2019). The Hippocratic oath does not specifically refer to medical research and hence, we included
a mention of it in a revised Hippocratic oath, which we believed was relevant to Indians, for this era
(Pai and Pandya, 2010). Specifically, we stated, in that revised oath:

“My research will depend on my circumstances but my enquiring spirit will search for problems, the
solutions to which will benefit patients. Just as I would not like to be treated as a guinea pig, I will
ensure that my patients participate in my studies as well-informed individuals, fully conversant with
the purpose of the enquiry, the questions asked, answers sought and how these may benefit others. All
my dealings will be honest and transparent.”

These codes follow these essential principles: honesty, objectivity, integrity, carefulness, openness,
respect for intellectual property, confidentiality, responsible publication, responsible mentoring,
social responsibility, non-discrimination, competence, legality, animal care, and protection of human
subjects (Resnick, 2020).

Unexpected Ethical Issues in Science

The leading information scientist, Arunachalam and his group have recently posited an even more
interesting idea: they suggest that even the question of where to publish (in research in general, not
necessarily for the medical sciences only) is an ethical issue! Madhan, et al. (2017), point out that
many Indian researchers publish their work in certain open-access journals that charge prohibitive
article-processing charges. That their research has often been funded by the government or by other
public-funding bodies, which are supported by the tax payer, means that these public funds are not
ultimately used for the greater common good and is hence, unethical. P. Balaram, ex-editor of Current
Science and former-Director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore believes that the funds spent
on article-processing charges are better spent on research itself or on libraries. The ethical issue of
publishing in a paywall journal, where the research is not even openly available to many who cannot
afford the journals, is obvious. This is a sound argument therefore whenever possible, we should
strive to publish in an open-access journal, one which is freely available to other researchers and to
the public. As it turns out, the four journals (Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, The National Medical
Journal of India, Current Science, and Indian J Cancer) that I am associated with are truly open access,
where neither author nor reader pays. This would also satisfy principle 3 of the Hong Kong principles
discussed below. This is, of course, a difficult choice as scientists are, after all, human, and factors such
as prestige, readership, circulation, visibility, and the impact factor also matter.

The other profoundly unethical principle that many researchers follow — usually aided and spurred
on by academic bodies and institutes In India as well as abroad — is the devotion to the impact factor
(Madhan, et al., 2018). The impact factor is a useful indicator of the importance of a journal, but

76 | University Grants Commission