When it comes to biological research, ethics is critical. It seeks to draw a line between what is right and wrong. It revolves around morals, with an aim of differentiating between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. When it comes to biological research, ethics should be observed in all stages of planning, evaluating, and conducting the project. Whenever applied in research, ethics ensures that participants are genuine and provided with the right information regarding the project, research is conducted within ethical limits, and privacy and confidentiality is guaranteed. Ethics is critical in biological fields, especially in promoting research goals in terms of avoiding errors, honest and knowledge. Indeed, ethics is critical in biological research, as revealed in the following discussion.
Accessing data and materials is an ethical issue that has sparked concern in the field of biology. In often cases, questions are raised on genes ownership, and other materials that pertains DNA. Of concern is whether the patenting of DNA sequences will end up limiting development and accessibility into vital products (Kerasidou & Parker, 2014). There is need to define the appropriate use of biological data and materials in genetic research, and defining it based on ethical principles as agreed between patients and scientists. Numerous uncertainties are linked to gene tests, especially in heart diseases and conditions such as Alzheimer’s due to multiple genes and gene-environment (Kerasidou & Parker, 2014). Controversies on testing and treatment of the participants have always come up. From an ethical perspective, it is wrong to conduct tests on the subjects, especially when there is no treatment available for them. Parents should restrict the young ones from being tested on adult-onset diseases.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethics is critical in stigmatization and psychological impact due to differences in genetics. Many issues need to be addressed, especially the way personal genetic details affects the society and individual’s perception of the subject. Notably, ethics looks into the way genomic information affects members from minority groups (Kerasidou & Parker, 2014). The impacts of genetic information on society and individual should be ethically handled, to avoid stigmatization and psychological trauma of minor communities and people affected. Ethics addresses issues that have been raised for long, on the need for healthcare personnel to counsel parents on the risks associated with genetic technology. They should be made aware that the genetic information is used to make reproductive decisions.
Scientists are supposed to pay attention towards research ethics while doing personal work, and in training students on ways of conducting research due to many reasons. To start with, modern research is not a personal activity. Scientists join hands with colleagues and students within their institutions and others from other institutions. During his time, Isaac Newton managed to come up with motion law, with minimal assistance from fellow scientist. However, modern researchers work as a team (Kerasidou & Parker, 2014). It is becoming common to see researchers joining hands to work on a single experiment. Teamwork is equally significant in evaluating projects and research proposals in peer reviews. The peer review activity serves as a mechanism of ensuring that research publications or proposals have met the professional and methodological standards. By joining hands, scientists and researchers ensure that ethical standards are observed, which is critical in ensuring scientific goals are achieved.
In overall, ethics is critical in biological research, as it ensures that the rights of clients, researchers and all parties involved are well protected. Notably, whenever genetic research is being conducted, the rights of minority groups, children, and parents involved are guaranteed.
Reference
Kerasidou, A., & Parker, M. (2014). Does science need bioethicists? Ethics and science collaboration in biomedical research. Research ethics, 10 (4), 214-226.
