Research Ethical Issues Case Study

Research ethics is defined as the application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct in the collection, reporting, analysis, and publication of research subjects’ information, particularly the active acceptance of the subjects' right to privacy, informed consent, and confidentiality (Millum & Sina, 2014). The three main objectives of research ethics are the protection of human subjects, ensure that research is carried out in a manner that serves the interests of society, groups, or individuals, and examines particular research activities and projects for their ethical soundness.
The ethical case study chosen is case 1. The ethical issues present in the case are privacy and confidentiality, and lack of informed consent. According to the case, Roger was given information after he made a promise he would not reveal the information to anyone else. Therefore, there was no informed consent from the leading shaman. Since there was a verbal agreement that the information should not be revealed, it would be wrong for Roger to publish the information. Confidentiality entails that the information should be safeguarded. Roger has an ethical duty to safeguard the information of the myth, and prevent any unauthorized access, disclosure, use, or loss of the information. Privacy also comes into play because revealing the information would result in Roger identifying the sources of the information they publish. The leading shaman was not willing to have their information published or repeated to someone. Revealing the information regarding the myth to other would be a violation of the Grand Lake peoples' privacy. This is because Roger would be sharing information that the community does not want to be shared.
In the case of Roger Thompson, the information was received in confidence and he made a promise to the leading shaman that they would not reveal the information to anyone else. This was a verbal agreement and the only way that others would know about the agreement was if they were able to gain access to the notes he made during the trip. Although there might be no way for others to find out, there are repercussions that would follow Roger especially if he has to reveal further information regarding the myth after the publication of the book. Roger could also be sued by the publishers for sharing information that should not have been shared or published in the first place (Schmucker et al., 2014). There is also a possibility that the Grand Lake people could seek legal redress after they learn that their myth had been published without their consent, and privacy had been violated by someone they had come to trust.
As Roger's manager, I would advise him not to publish the information before they receive written consent from the leading shaman allowing them to publish the myth. As it stands right now, the information is still private and it was only shared with Roger for his own personal consumption and not for the sake of others. Therefore, he should not share the information. The privacy of the Grand Lake people should be protected at all costs and information should only be shared with their approval. Ethical issues should always be taken seriously and Roger should ensure that he abides by the agreement that was made before the information was received. Breaking this agreement is equivalent to them breaking a signed contract. If Roger seriously wants to publish the myth in order for them to demonstrate the authority of the shaman, he should visit the shaman again and inform him/her about his intentions and request for permission to publish the myth.


References
Millum, J., & Sina, B. (2014). Introduction: international research ethics education. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(2), 1-2.
Schmucker, C., Schell, L. K., Portalupi, S., Oeller, P., Cabrera, L., Bassler, D., . . . Von Elm, E. (2014). Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e114023.