Study+guide+7

Q3. What is meant by reduction, refinement and replacement? How can each of these be implemented in scientific research?

These are the three principles set out in the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes.

By ensuring that the use of animals is justified and using strategies to maximise the information obtained per animal, the number of animals required may be reduced. Replacement techniques involve using alternative methods such as computers in place of animals or using animals with a lower potential for pain perception, such as some invertebrates.Refinement alternatives aim to modify experimental procedures to minimise pain and distress and enhance the welfare of the animal during its lifetime. Sandra Powell

Q4. Humans must give 'informed consent' before participating in an experiment. What do people have to be informed about? Informed consent is having a full knowledge of the facts, and consequences for giving this consent. People need to be informed of who they are giving consent too, the reasons for the consent and any further implications that giving consent may have. If people are participating in an experiment of some form they need to know any risks/benefits that may be involved. Also privacy and confidentialty must be considered when dealing with humans, so only the people working on the project know more specific details than others nay need to know. Also participants need to be informed of any unexpected findings in an appropriate matter and time. Also the participant must be advised of treatment/care and monetary costs (will they research team pay or will the participant pay) if something 'unforseen' does occur during the research. So there are many physical, psychological and economic factors that need to be assessed by the participant before 'informed consent' can be given. -Stacey Mussared

ML this comment is outside the scope of the question (good answer above). In science informed consent is a legal requirement in work involving humans - remember those forms you had to get signed for the interviews? The same applies in some other fields, for example in making recordings for oral history collections. But in some situations 'participator beware' seems to apply. Journalists do not get informed consent. Maybe some journalism students would like to comment?

Q5. An article is submitted to a prestigious journal by a convicted felon. Should the article be reviewed? If it is good science should it be accepted and published? Rebecca is having trouble saving, this is a test code I am assuming that the felon is no longer in prison, as I hoping that the prison system doesn't have high standard labs sitting around free for the sole use of inmates. Any science article, no matter the source should be able to submitted to a journal. It would be sad day if the cure for cancer or HIV, or a better, cleaner way for energy use was not discovered or published solely because of the past character of the person who had completed the research. The article would be more heavily scrutinised then most due to the source when going through peer review, the referring process and would most likely be heavily replicated to ensure that no falsification had occurred – the article that came out at the end would be highly verified then most. Science is not here, in my opinion, to be the moral compass of the community. It is a field in which anyone with an idea, the intelligence and passion to put that idea in to reality should be given a fair and even voice, and maybe just change the world. Rebecca Richards. code ML The good thing about this Q is that there is no correct answer. Here are some thoughts on the answer above. Would the referees know that the author was a convicted felon? If the editor knows, what are his/her ethical considerations re informing or not informing the referees? There are all sorts of people in the community with convictions for something - where would you draw a line? If you think the criminal history of the writer is relevant, do you have a police search done on every author? As a referee I think you would read more carefully if you knew the writer had a prior history of fraud (i've had to look up felony - it means a serious crime), but probably not if they had a manslaughter conviction. I don't think referees would try to replicate experiments - too time consuming and too boring. An editor might however commission someone to test the claims - an editor of nature commissioned work on homeopathy, but I think this is very rare.

I think that a paper should be accepted or rejected based on its scientific merit, not the life history of the author. It's possible that papers have been written and published by people who have committed crimes but have not been convicted. It doesn't change the validity of the science. I wonder though, if a notorious criminal turned scientist submitted a paper to a journal, would it be a good selling point for the journal? It would most probably generate media interest and therefore exposure for the journal. Karen