Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Ethical reproducibility: towards transparent reporting in biomedical research

Nature Methods volume 10, pages 843–845 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Optimism about biomedicine is challenged by the increasingly complex ethical, legal and social issues it raises. Reporting of scientific methods is no longer sufficient to address the complex relationship between science and society. To promote 'ethical reproducibility', we call for transparent reporting of research ethics methods used in biomedical research.

Reporting of scientific methods has received much attention in the last 15 years. Reporting of research ethics methods, by comparison, has received very little. In a letter published in Nature, we argued for detailed reporting of research ethics methods in published scientific reports and a commitment to what we called—by analogy with scientific reproducibility—ethical reproducibility1. Research ethics methods are the features of study design conceptualized and undertaken for ethical reasons. In animal research, these include alternatives to animal use; details concerning housing and husbandry; steps taken to minimize the number of animals used in a study; procedures developed to minimize pain, suffering and lasting harm; and techniques for euthanasia. In research involving humans, research ethics methods include procedures for obtaining informed consent such as audio-visual communication aids and age-appropriate language guides, tools for assessing capacity, adaptive dose-escalation schemes, equipoise requirements, monitoring procedures, stopping rules, post-study debriefing strategies and provisions for post-study access. In this paper, we argue that the justification for scientific reporting extends to research ethics methods and that reporting of these methods will enhance the review and conduct of biomedical research. Furthermore, in light of ongoing concerns about the efficiency and efficacy of both institutional animal care and research ethics committees (ACCs and RECs) charged with reviewing biomedical research2,3,4,5,6,7, improved transparency should be a priority.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Anderson, J.A., Eijkholt, M. & Illes, J. Nature 487, 432 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Macleod, M. Nature 477, 511 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hansen, L.A. J. Med. Ethics 39, 188–190 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Plous, S. & Herzog, H. Science 293, 608–609 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rice, M.J. Philos. Ethics Humanit. Med. 6, 12 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stark, A., Tyson, J. & Hibberd, P. J. Perinatol. 30, 163–169 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Helfand, B.T. et al. J. Urol. 181, 2674–2679 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Begg, C. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 276, 637–639 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dingemann, J., Dingemann, C. & Ure, B. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 21, 215–219 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Taljaard, M. et al. Br. Med. J. 342, d2496 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Landis, S.C. et al. Nature 490, 187–191 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kilkenny, C. et al. PLoS ONE 4, e7824 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Emanuel, E.J. et al. Ann. Intern. Med. 141, 282–291 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Knoppers, B.M. Health Law Rev. 17, 47 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ashcroft, R. & Pfeffer, N. Br. Med. J. 322, 1294–1296 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Canadian Council on Animal Care. Policy statement for senior administrators responsible for animal care and use programs. http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Policies/Senior_administrators.pdf (CCAC, 2008).

  17. Bean, S. et al. IRB 32, 9–12 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McDonald, M. Health Law J. 9, 1–21 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eijkholt, M., Anderson, J. A. & Illes, J. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 35, 146–152 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. Responsibility in the use of animals in bioscience research: expectations of the major research council and charitable funding bodies. http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=719 (NC3Rs, 2013).

  21. Würbel, H. Nature 446, 257 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics 7th edn. (Oxford University Press, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton University Press, 2011).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Gibbons, M. Nature 402, C81–C84 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gunsalus, C.K. et al. Science 312, 1441 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank M. Cho, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, and R. Cook-Deegan, Director for Genome Ethics, Law & Policy, Duke University, for insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This work was enabled by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research CNE no. 85117, the Canada Research Chairs Program, British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, Canada Foundation for Innovation, US National Institute of Health–National Institute of Mental Health 9R01MH84282-05 (J.I.) and the Stem Cell Network 9/5251(CT8). This work was conducted at the National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. James A. Anderson is at the Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,

    James A Anderson

  2. Marleen Eijkholt is at the Alden March Bioethics Institute, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, USA.,

    Marleen Eijkholt

  3. Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Judy Illes is at the National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.,

    Judy Illes

Authors
  1. James A Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marleen Eijkholt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judy Illes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy Illes.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, J., Eijkholt, M. & Illes, J. Ethical reproducibility: towards transparent reporting in biomedical research. Nat Methods 10, 843–845 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2564

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2564

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing