Research clinic film overview

The research clinic is a film that the office of research integrity (ORI) posted online. It shows the interactions of four carefully chosen characters and gives the audience the chance to assume the part of one of them and predict the outcomes of the roles that each character plays. The purpose of this video, which was produced in the US by the office for human rights protection (OHRP) and the department of health and human services' office of research and integrity, is to educate researchers on their legal obligations and introduce them to fresh methods for avoiding unethical behavior when conducting research (Sox & Rennie, 2006). The four selected characters are a principal investigator (PI), an occupied oncologist working on ensuring a balance between her researchers and treating her patients with utmost care. The second is a coordinator of clinical research, a tired nurse pressured by the PI to give false data and break rules of study. The third is an assistant researcher who has challenges in getting authoritative permission and maintaining research hierarchy (Sox & Rennie, 2006). The fourth character is the institutional review board (IRB) chairperson who is mandated with the role of safeguarding researchers and research integrity against traditions that resist change.

Misconduct in research can result from failure to observe the laid down guidelines safeguarding researchers and research work (Sox & Rennie, 2006). The research misconduct was first analyzed, and mechanisms of misconduct management established in the Northwestern University (NU) in the US. This video demonstrates the roles played by four selected characters in a research clinic. The principal investigator (PI) forces the coordinator of clinical research to give false information and break the protocol rules of research activity (Sox & Rennie, 2006).

The research assistant, in turn, experiences significant challenges in adhering to the protocols and gaining authoritative go ahead. Lastly, there is an institutional review board (IRB) chairperson who is charged with the mandate of protecting researchers and research integrity against practices that resist change. All the four characters conflict in maintaining a balance of their profession and their research work. There is also another challenge posed to the characters of maintaining the established research protocols (Sox & Rennie, 2006). Researchers can manage research misconduct as demonstrated by the research clinic video through avoiding giving false data, fabrication, plagiarizing content, full participation, observing protocol and approval of research work by the IRB.



References

Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(8), 609