WHAT ARE THE ETHICAL LIMITS OF RESEARCH? (EXAMPLES) - SCIENCE - 2025

The ethical limits to research are a series of principles and norms that prevent the use of science to the detriment of the human being or the environment. For example, an ethical limit for many scientists is not to experiment on live animals. For others the limit is not to investigate with human beings or with children; these limits depend on each person and culture.

Science should always be used to improve society and promote knowledge. This makes it possible to find the solution to apparently insoluble problems. In recent times it has reached such an advance that it allows to reproduce and modify normally natural processes.

Cloning, experimentation with embryonic cells or genetically modified cultures raise a social debate about how far science can go in solving their problems.

The limits come intrinsic to delimit how far we want to go in knowing, without crossing the line of destruction to get to know it. They are not something negative, but positive, since the idea that it can be investigated implies that there is something to discover.

The ethical limit to research should not be understood as something restrictive or that diminishes the possibilities of research, but as something that regulates and harmonizes the researcher and what he is researching.

An investigation is also subject to the limits of the investigation itself and the investigating subject, its indigent, finite and contingent condition. The freedom of investigation must be linked to the inherent freedom of people.

As Millán Puelles says, if we do not take into account human freedom, the object of the investigation, the man himself, becomes dehumanized. The experimentation will investigate anything but something that belongs to the concrete man and will have failed.

Limits of ethics in research

The limits of ethics common to all research, regardless of what branch of science they are in, are:

1- Honesty

Science seeks to discover the secrets of nature and honesty is a very important principle to keep in mind.

The data offered to the scientific community must be truthful, false data must never be produced. Scientists should never misinform the community.

2- Integrity

It is necessary to act with sincerity to achieve the unification of action and thought.

3- Impartiality

Research bias, whether in data analysis or interpretation, experimental design or review, should be avoided.

The bias that may derive from the interests that may influence the investigation must be avoided in all investigations

4- Sincerity

The truthful data we get from our research must be shared, even if it is subject to criticism.

5- Care

Careless errors or negligence that may occur in the course of the investigation must be avoided. It is important to keep a good record of the investigation to avoid oversights or loss of information.

6- Confidentiality

Confidentiality needs to be protected in all aspects of the research, from its participants to the files of the personnel involved in it

7- Honor of intellectual property

It is very important that all research respect the intellectual property of others, avoid plagiarism or use data without the consent of the author.

It is also important to include the references from which the data being handled is obtained.

8- Non-discrimination

It is included inside and outside the research, in the participants of the same or with professional colleagues who carry out similar studies.

9- Social responsibility

Science research must go hand in hand with society, possible social damage must be mitigated and prevented.

10- Animal care

The controversy over the use of animals for scientific research has gained a lot of steam in recent years.

Attempts should be made to minimize the impact that research has on animals, as well as to design experiments that do not unnecessarily affect them

11- Legality

We must abide by the laws in force at all times and understand that these do not contemplate all the situations that may develop in the course of the investigation, so it is important to understand them to assess the limits of the investigation itself.

Examples of ethical limits that were exceeded

The Monster Study of stuttering

In 1939, the psychologist Wendell Johnson developed, together with the University of Iowa, what would become known as the 'Monster Study', an investigation that sought to demonstrate that stuttering was a learned behavior and, therefore, could be unlearned.

To do this, Johnson took 22 children from an orphanage in Iowa as subjects of the experiment, which he divided into two groups. With the first group, the researchers were always friendly and praised their way of speaking and expressing themselves. With the second group, the methodology was totally different and they used to receive insults or ridicule in order to generate stress.

Many of the children in the second group suffered from serious psychological problems, in addition to developing stuttering and communication difficulties. Although the researchers later carried out psychological techniques to help them, the damage was never healed.

It was not until 2001 that the University of Iowa apologized for these unfortunate events that caused so much damage to children that they experienced how ethics were exceeded to explain a theory.

Nazi experiment against malaria

The arrival of Nazism to power in 1933 gave the nation's scientists free rein to a series of unethical experiments in areas such as medicine.

From sterilization or electroconvulsive techniques to mutilation and extreme psychological experiments. Of course, the subjects to experiment were Jewish inmates, of Romani or Polish origin, as well as vulnerable population such as disabled.

One of the most famous experiments was to infect individuals with malaria in order to experiment with various drugs that were being developed. In most cases, they died due to the high mortality rates of the disease in question.

Relationship between ethics and research

At the point where we don't know whether to continue with scientific advances or to stop, is where ethics comes into play.

It defines the behaviors that may or may not be lawful. Dogmatic ethics establishes principles and norms that do not take into account the acquired knowledge, making it rational and independent of the prevailing social norm.

Argumentative ethics, since its inception, as a branch of philosophy, seeks knowledge of nature and the existence of human beings. He believes that prejudice and false appearances must be fought.

We have to talk about ethics in the plural, since we live in a globalized world and decisions are broader, since no current society is closed and can maintain its own common ethics.

Today we live in a plural thinking society where each person has their own ideas and opinions. In order to achieve a more just society, ethics must intervene, positioning itself in the ethical value that it represents and that is separated from the thoughts and doctrines that people have.

The rules set by ethics help to make a more just society by seeking harmony between people's private lives and community lives.

When a debate arises, such as the study with embryonic cells, ethics has to elaborate an answer, it cannot be a simple yes or no, but rather it has to carry out an exercise of reflection on factors and consequences that are often found opposed.

Ethics has to harmonize the values ​​committed, establish limits to the assumptions that are raised, what condition and what purpose the studies seek and, in this way, be able to elaborate a discourse where the limits that the study that concerns us must have are raised.

Look for the purpose of the study, which can be therapeutic, social, etc. And likewise, the conditions of scientific rigor that must be followed, as well as what control and supervision procedures must be applied.

References

1. HERRSCHER, Roberto. A universal code of journalism ethics: Problems, limitations, and proposals. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 2002, vol. 17, no 4, p. 277-289.
2. ROSTAIN, Tanina. Ethics Lost: Limitations of Current Approaches to Lawyer Regulation. Cal. L. Rev., 1997, vol. 71, p. 1273.
3. WINKLER, Earl R.; COOMBS, Jerrold R. Applied ethics: A reader.
4. WHITE, James J. Machiavelli and the bar: Ethical limitations on lying in negotiation. Law & Social Inquiry, 1980, vol. 5, no 4, p. 926-938.
5. BEYERSTEIN, Come on. The functions and limitations of professional codes of ethics.
6. BUTLER, Ian. A code of ethics for social work and social care research. British Journal of Social Work, 2002, vol. 32, no 2, p. 239-248.
7. GUILLEMIN, Marilys; GILLAM, Lynn. Ethics, reflexivity, and "ethically important moments" in research. Qualitative inquiry, 2004, vol. 10, no 2, p. 261-280.