Academics and Integrity in Biomedical Research in Zambia: Personal and Institutional Responsibilities
Keywords:
Academics, Integrity, Ethics of Research, Biornedical Research, Corporate Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Zambia
Abstract
The pressure on academics to carry out research and to publish, while at the same time having to perform other demanding tasks, is great. Part of this pressure stems from their own institutions that stress the need for publications in order to be promoted. Generally, time to achieve this output is limited since academics have other important duties which range from lecturing, seeing students, staff and stakeholders, to conducting exams and attending numerous meetings. Furthermore, professionals who have developed to being academics are on average people of a mature age and therefore have other social responsibilities and obligations coming from their specific professions. For instance, they may be requested by their professional bodies to obtain annual licensing and to collect a certain amount of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points for re-certification. Given this scenario, juggling these multiple roles and tasks is complicated, and the temptation for academics to take shortcuts and not to stick to the moral and professional integrity that ought to guide every research enterprise in all its phases (from the design to the publication of the findings) increases. Therefore, the need exists to restate the reasons behind the call for responsible behaviours and practices in research.References
1. Franco G (2011). Scientific Research and Academic promotion in Occupational Medicine: what are the rules of the game? La Medicina del Lavoro, 102(2): 167-73
2. Franco G (2009). Publish or Perish: The Scientific productivity of academics in the field of Occupational medicine. La Medicina del Lavoro, 100(3): 163-70.
3. Bullen CR, Reeve J (2011). Turning postgraduate students' research into publications: A survey of New Zealand Masters in Public Health: Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, doi: 10.1177/1010539511417998.
4. Van Dijk N, Hooft L, Wieringa-de Waard M (2010). What are the barriers to residents practicing evidence-based medicine? A systematic review. Academic Medicine: Journal ofthe Association ofAmerican Medical Colleges, doi: 10.1097/ACM.Ob013e3181d4152f.
5. Dutta S, Dunnington GL (2000). Factors contributing to success in surgical education research. American Journal ofSurgery,
6. Chipeta J (2013). Responsible Conduct of Research: Moral and Professional Obligations in Research, JABS, 1 (2):56.
7. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics, ed., Oxford University Press, New York-oxford, pp. 6, 31-32, 37
8. UN (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
9. WMA (2013). Declaration ofHelsinki — Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, Fortaleza (Brazil), http: // ww w. wma. net/ en/3 Opublications/ I Opolicies/b3/
10. UNESCO (2005). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and
Human Rights, Paris, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php DO=DO TOPIC&URL SECTI ON=201.htm1 l l . Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences CIOMS (2002). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research involving Human subjects, WHO Geneva. http://www.cioms.ch /publications/layout_guide2002.pdf
12. ICH-GCP (1996). International Conference on Hannonization of Technical requirements for registration of Pharmaceuticals for human use. Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice. E6(Rl). http://www.ich.org /fileadmin/Public Web Site/ICH Products/Guidelines/E fficacy/E6_Rl/Step4/E6 RI Guideline.pdf
13. King Committee on Governance (2009). Summary of report on govemance for South Africa King Ill 2009. http ://www.auditor.co.za/Portals/23/king%20111 %20sai ca.pdf
14. Munalula-Nkandu, Dieric10( K, Munthali JC, Viafora C (2012). Ethical issues surrounding exportation ofsamples from developing countries l. JABS, 1(2):86-89.
15. Marcovitch H (2007). Misconduct by researchers & authors. Gaceta Sanitaria,
16. No Authors (2013). Publishers Expression of concern. Molecular & Cellular Biology, 33(12):2508. doi: 10.
1128/MCB.0035-13
17. Ritner HL, Kranke P, SchäferM, Roewer N, Brack A (2009). What can be leamt from the Scott Reuben case? Scientific misconduct in Anaesthesiology. Der
Anaesthesist, doi 10. 1007/001011637-6
18. Claxton LD (2005). Scientific authorship, Part 1: A window into scientific fraud. Mutation Research, 589(1): 17-30.
19. Golloqly L, Momen H (2006). Ethical Dilemmas in scientific publications: pitfalls & solutions for editors. Revista de Saüde Püblica, Spec 40:24-9.
20. McMullan E (2008). Open access mandate threatens dissemination of scientific information. Journal ofneuroopthalmology, 28(1):72-4. doi: 1 0 1079/ WNO.0b013e318167cB9
21. Halperin EC (1999). Publish or Perish and bankrupt the medical library while we are at it. Academic Journal: Joumal of the Association ofAmerican Medical Colleges,
22. Munro CL & Savel RH (2013). Publish (high quality evidence for clinical practice) or (patients may) perish. American Journal ofCritical Care, 22(3): 182-4 doi: 10.4037/ajcc2013294
23. Belmont Report (1979). http://videocast.nih.gov/ pdffohrp_appendix belmont_report_vol 2.pdf
24. Emanuel EJ et al. (eds., 2008), The Oxford Textbook of
Clinical Research Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York
2. Franco G (2009). Publish or Perish: The Scientific productivity of academics in the field of Occupational medicine. La Medicina del Lavoro, 100(3): 163-70.
3. Bullen CR, Reeve J (2011). Turning postgraduate students' research into publications: A survey of New Zealand Masters in Public Health: Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, doi: 10.1177/1010539511417998.
4. Van Dijk N, Hooft L, Wieringa-de Waard M (2010). What are the barriers to residents practicing evidence-based medicine? A systematic review. Academic Medicine: Journal ofthe Association ofAmerican Medical Colleges, doi: 10.1097/ACM.Ob013e3181d4152f.
5. Dutta S, Dunnington GL (2000). Factors contributing to success in surgical education research. American Journal ofSurgery,
6. Chipeta J (2013). Responsible Conduct of Research: Moral and Professional Obligations in Research, JABS, 1 (2):56.
7. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics, ed., Oxford University Press, New York-oxford, pp. 6, 31-32, 37
8. UN (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
9. WMA (2013). Declaration ofHelsinki — Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, Fortaleza (Brazil), http: // ww w. wma. net/ en/3 Opublications/ I Opolicies/b3/
10. UNESCO (2005). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and
Human Rights, Paris, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php DO=DO TOPIC&URL SECTI ON=201.htm1 l l . Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences CIOMS (2002). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research involving Human subjects, WHO Geneva. http://www.cioms.ch /publications/layout_guide2002.pdf
12. ICH-GCP (1996). International Conference on Hannonization of Technical requirements for registration of Pharmaceuticals for human use. Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice. E6(Rl). http://www.ich.org /fileadmin/Public Web Site/ICH Products/Guidelines/E fficacy/E6_Rl/Step4/E6 RI Guideline.pdf
13. King Committee on Governance (2009). Summary of report on govemance for South Africa King Ill 2009. http ://www.auditor.co.za/Portals/23/king%20111 %20sai ca.pdf
14. Munalula-Nkandu, Dieric10( K, Munthali JC, Viafora C (2012). Ethical issues surrounding exportation ofsamples from developing countries l. JABS, 1(2):86-89.
15. Marcovitch H (2007). Misconduct by researchers & authors. Gaceta Sanitaria,
16. No Authors (2013). Publishers Expression of concern. Molecular & Cellular Biology, 33(12):2508. doi: 10.
1128/MCB.0035-13
17. Ritner HL, Kranke P, SchäferM, Roewer N, Brack A (2009). What can be leamt from the Scott Reuben case? Scientific misconduct in Anaesthesiology. Der
Anaesthesist, doi 10. 1007/001011637-6
18. Claxton LD (2005). Scientific authorship, Part 1: A window into scientific fraud. Mutation Research, 589(1): 17-30.
19. Golloqly L, Momen H (2006). Ethical Dilemmas in scientific publications: pitfalls & solutions for editors. Revista de Saüde Püblica, Spec 40:24-9.
20. McMullan E (2008). Open access mandate threatens dissemination of scientific information. Journal ofneuroopthalmology, 28(1):72-4. doi: 1 0 1079/ WNO.0b013e318167cB9
21. Halperin EC (1999). Publish or Perish and bankrupt the medical library while we are at it. Academic Journal: Joumal of the Association ofAmerican Medical Colleges,
22. Munro CL & Savel RH (2013). Publish (high quality evidence for clinical practice) or (patients may) perish. American Journal ofCritical Care, 22(3): 182-4 doi: 10.4037/ajcc2013294
23. Belmont Report (1979). http://videocast.nih.gov/ pdffohrp_appendix belmont_report_vol 2.pdf
24. Emanuel EJ et al. (eds., 2008), The Oxford Textbook of
Clinical Research Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York
Published
2025-09-23
How to Cite
1.
Munalula N, Furlan E, Chipeta J, Luputa S. Academics and Integrity in Biomedical Research in Zambia: Personal and Institutional Responsibilities. Journal of Agricultural and Biomedical Sciences [Internet]. 23Sep.2025 [cited 14Oct.2025];2(2):57-1. Available from: https://journals.unza.zm/index.php/JABS/article/view/1562
Section
General
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright: ©️ JABS. Articles in this journal are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.