In 2016, following pandemic influenza threats and the 2014–2016 Ebola virus disease outbreaks, the WHO developed a guidance document for managing ethical issues in infectious disease outbreaks. In this article, we analyse some ethical issues that have had a predominant role in decision making in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic but were absent or not addressed in the same ways in the 2016 guidance document. A pandemic results in a health crisis and social and political crises both nationally and (...) globally. The ethical implications of these global effects should be properly identified so that appropriate actions can be taken globally and not just in national isolation. Our analysis, which is a starting point to test the broader relevance of the 2016 WHO document that remains the only available guidance document applicable globally, concludes that the WHO guidance should be updated to provide reasoned and thoughtful comprehensive ethics advice for the sound management of the current and future pandemics. (shrink)

BackgroundResearch misconduct is a global concern in biomedical science. There are no comprehensive data regarding the perception and situation of scientific misconduct among the Iranian medical faculty members. We conducted a nationwide survey to assess the research misconduct among the medical faculty members in Iran.MethodsWe used the Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ) on the Google Forms platform. We sent the survey link to a systematic random sample of medical faculty members in Iran (N = 4986). Descriptive analyses (...) were performed on the individual items of the PRMQ, with frequencies and percentages for categorical and Likert-type response items, and means and standard deviation (S.D.) for continuous variables. Chi-square analysis was conducted to test hypotheses examining differences in the frequency of responses related to factors influencing misconduct. We also defined four tenure categories (TC) based on the working years of the participants as tenured faculty members. All the analyses were performed using R 3.6.0.ResultsThe response rate was 13.8% (692 responses). Nearly 70% of the respondents agreed that their publication output would be of higher quality if there were no publication pressure. Approximately three-quarters (N =499, 72.1%) of the respondents had been aware of some instances of research misconduct during the previous year according to their understanding of misconduct. Among the participants, 18.5% perceived the effectiveness of their associated organisation’s rules for reducing research misconduct to be high or very high. Pressure for tenure was identified as the item most frequently perceived with a strong behavioural influence on engaging in research misconduct (80.2%).ConclusionsThis study confirms that research misconduct needs to be actively addressed among the medical faculty members. Making policies with a focus on boosting awareness regarding the occasions of scientific misconduct and its management seems to be indispensable in the future in Iran. (shrink)

Spitale, Germani, and Biller-Andorno (2024) presented an ethical framework for managing risk and crisis communication (RCC) during public health emergencies (PHE) in their recent paper. They advoca...

Every minute during an epidemic is important and research in such conditions is for the benefit of the society. Considering that identifying experiences is a way to prevent repeated mistakes and prepare people to face crisis situations, this study aimed to explain participants’ experiences of ethical challenges encountered in conducting research related to Covid-19 in Iran. This qualitative study was carried out using conventional content analysis for 2 years from March 2020 to March 2022 in Tehran, Iran. A number of (...) 30 people were selected in a purposeful method and information was obtained through semi-structured interviews. The participants in the study were people with positions including members of institutional and national research ethics committees, researchers, clinicians, university hospitals managers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The method of data analysis in this study was conventional content analysis using the Graneheim and Lundman method. Participants’ experiences on ethical challenges were explained through three themes: “substantive ethical values principles”, “the Research Environment”, “Research Governance and Management”. This study examines ethical challenges in COVID-19 research across three domains: values, environment, and research governance. The results suggest the need to develop crisis-specific ethical frameworks, strengthen research ethics infrastructure and training, and establish more transparent standards and oversight systems. These findings could be useful in refining ethical policies and managing future crises. (shrink)