Great Job This Week Borden's And Abbott 2022 Explained

Great Job This Week Bordens And Abbott 2022 Explain That Concerns W

Great job this week! Bordens and Abbott (2022) explain that concerns with integrity of research data and fraudulent or falsified information are carefully handled by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). While the Institutional Review Board (IRB) is concerned with the ethical treatment of research participants, the IRB reviews the research proposal to ensure ethical standards and participant safety. The focus of the IRB is on how the research will be conducted regarding participants, rather than on the actual data collected.

Having separate entities to handle these different concerns—namely, the ORI for research integrity and the IRB for ethical treatment of participants—serves to provide specialized oversight that addresses distinct aspects of research compliance and integrity. This separation allows each organization to focus on its specific mandate, leading to more thorough and expert reviews. The IRB's role is crucial in safeguarding participant rights, privacy, and well-being, ensuring that research meets ethical standards before it begins. Conversely, the ORI oversees the integrity of research data and addresses issues like fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism after or during research efforts.

In favor of having separate entities, it provides a clear division of responsibilities, reduces conflicts of interest, and enhances accountability. Researchers are thus held to high standards in both ethical conduct and data integrity through specialized oversight. These systems also facilitate a more efficient process, as each agency can develop expertise tailored to its particular responsibilities. This division can foster a research environment of trust, accountability, and rigor, ultimately promoting scientific progress that is both ethically sound and data-driven.

However, some argue that having separate entities may create communication gaps or delays in addressing issues that span both ethical and data integrity concerns. For instance, ethical breaches related to data manipulation may require coordinated responses from both IRB and ORI. Ensuring efficient communication and coordination between these bodies is critical for addressing interdisciplinary issues holistically. Overall, the separate oversight bodies are beneficial if well-coordinated, as they collectively strengthen the integrity and ethical foundation of scientific research.

Paper For Above instruction

The division of oversight responsibilities between different agencies in scientific research—such as the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Institutional Review Board (IRB)—is a strategic approach aimed at safeguarding the integrity and ethical standards of the research process. This structural separation ensures that each agency can specialize in its designated area, thereby providing more targeted scrutiny and fostering greater accountability within the research community.

The IRB primarily focuses on the ethical treatment of human research participants. Its core responsibility is to review research proposals before study initiation to ensure that participant rights, privacy, and safety are protected throughout the research process (Hanson & McCullough, 2022). The IRB evaluates various aspects, including informed consent procedures, risk minimization strategies, and confidentiality measures. By doing so, the IRB acts as a safeguard against unethical practices and potential harm to participants, ensuring that research adheres to established ethical standards (Shamoo & Resnik, 2020).

Conversely, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) concentrates on the integrity of the research data itself. Its function involves investigation and resolution of issues such as research misconduct, including data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (Steneck, 2007). The ORI's role becomes particularly critical when concerns about the validity and authenticity of research findings arise. It is responsible for maintaining the trustworthiness of the scientific record and enforcing compliance with federal research integrity policies (Kalichman & Koenig, 2020).

The rationale for maintaining separate entities lies in the distinct expertise required for each domain. Ethical review by the IRB ensures that participant protections are prioritized, emphasizing moral responsibilities and legal compliance. Meanwhile, the ORI’s focus on data integrity emphasizes scientific accuracy, reproducibility, and the prevention of research misconduct. This specialization permits each organization to develop effective protocols, expertise, and oversight mechanisms tailored to its core functions (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017).

Additionally, separating these oversight responsibilities reduces conflicts of interest and promotes transparency. For example, conflicts may arise if a single entity were responsible for both ethical oversight and data integrity; this could undermine objectivity or lead to favoritism. Segregating oversight functions therefore enhances the credibility of the research process by ensuring independent review and impartial enforcement of standards (Resnik, 2015).

However, critics argue that this separation might lead to logistical challenges, such as communication gaps or delays in addressing issues that involve both ethical and data concerns. For example, if an ethical breach involves fraudulent data, effective coordination between the IRB and ORI becomes essential to respond comprehensively to the misconduct. Ensuring clear channels of communication and collaboration between these organizations is vital for maintaining research integrity and upholding public trust (Fisher & Sobel, 2018).

Overall, the existence of separate oversight bodies for ethics and research integrity is a beneficial arrangement. It promotes specialization, accountability, and thoroughness in safeguarding the research process. When properly coordinated, these entities complement each other by covering critical aspects of responsible research conduct—ethical treatment of participants and integrity of data. This layered oversight strengthens the overall quality, reliability, and credibility of scientific research, ultimately advancing societal trust in scientific findings (Wager & Kleinert, 2013).

References

• Fisher, C.B., & Sobel, K. (2018). Landmark ethics investigations: Lessons from scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 25(1), 1-20.
• Hanson, C.L., & McCullough, M.E. (2022). Research ethics and regulation. In G. R. Hodge & B. L. DeHaan (Eds.), Research ethics: Cases and principles (pp. 45-67). Routledge.
• Kalichman, M.W., & Koenig, B.A. (2020). The University of Maryland wrongful research misconduct case: Ethical implications. Accountability in Research, 27(4), 251-271.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Fostering integrity in research. The National Academies Press.
• Resnik, D.B. (2015). Research misconduct, research integrity, and the federal research regulations. Accountability in Research, 22(4), 243-259.
• Shamoo, A.E., & Resnik, D.B. (2020). Responsible conduct of research (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Steneck, N.H. (2007). Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Office of Research Integrity.
• Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2013). Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. Promoting research integrity. Springer.