Magnus, David, PhD

This talk will challenge the weight placed on two of the primary pillars of research ethics. The first pillar is that the ethical conduct of research requires integrity, defined by the importance of
avoiding scientific misconduct. Misconduct is then defined as engaging in fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. The second is the central importance of informed consent for guaranteeing the ethics of clinical research. Both of these central protections are
open to empirical challenge. Contrary to the received view, there is strong evidence that scientists perceive scientific misbehavior in much broader terms than the narrow framework focusing on fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. And while informed consent is an
important ideal, it is has been given far too much weight, given the evidence that has accumulated about the real world limitations of informed consent.

Questions to Think About in Preparation for the Lecture:

• If research integrity and informed consent are not as integral to the ethical conduct of research as normally assumed, what might be better ways to promote professionalism in biomedical research?

• Why do you think that so few formal institutional reports of research misconduct are received by the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI)?

• Which of the six strategies proposed by Titus and colleagues to champion the responsible conduct of research promise to be most effective in fostering a culture of research integrity among US scientists?


Required Reading (prior to lecture):
Titus SL, Wells JA, & Rhoades LJ (2008) ”Repairing research integrity”. Nature 453: 980-982.

REFRESHMENTS 11:30am - 11:55am

**Lecture will also be repeated July 23rd, 2-3pm in Pelton Auditorium at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center**