The history of research ethics has taught me that ethical codes for research aim to ensure that research is undertaken rigorously and that data is never fabricated or misrepresented. I have learned that the most important reason for developing and publishing the ethical codes was to make researchers accountable to the public in seeking to ensure that possible causes of harm to research participants are identified and minimized (Gelling, 2020). Besides, I have gained insight that all research that involves human participants should undergo independent ethical review so that decisions about risk are not only made by researchers (Gelling, 2020). The guidelines and codes of practice for research are crucial, but it is only by considering the historical context within which these were developed that researchers can understand the need to adhere to acceptable ethical standards.
When reviewing research studies related to my PICOT question on the impact of cognitive training on ADHD symptoms, I perceived that today’s researchers adequately protect the rights of human subjects. There exists Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), which are formally designated to review and monitor biomedical research involving human subjects. In line with FDA regulations, an IRB has the authority to approve, require modifications in, or disapprove research (White, 2020). IRBs have helped in ensuring that human subjects are protected during research. In the studies I searched, the IRBs provided an independent evaluation to ensure the research is ethically acceptable, checked clinical investigators’ potential biases, and evaluated the researchers’ compliance with regulations and laws designed to protect human subjects.
References
Gelling, L. (2020). Research ethics in real world research. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15083
White, M. G. (2020). Why Human Subjects Research Protection Is Important. The Ochsner journal, 20(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.20.5012
Order this paper