Like basic and applied research, innovations are
based on evidence collected to support prototype.
Often these evidence comprise of the novel narratives
supported by data generated through research (Fassin
2000). One of the common ethical issues that arises in
the innovation environment is related to the claim of
intellectual property ownership. when improvement is
made on an existing undeveloped rudimentary of idea,
technology or product. Innovation from institutions
may be further complicated by the context in which
it has been developed. For instance, in the case of a
laboratory set up with multiple persons and efforts,
integrity is likely to be at stake. The status of different staff who may contribute directly or indirectly
to an innovation – from the professor to laboratory
assistants – can create problems. The source of funding if not addressed right from the beginning through
formal documentation (such as memoranda of understanding and agreements) can also raise conflicts and
even ethical issues. However, all these can be overcome if there is a culture of integrity based on good
governance, best practice and institutional support
for researchers. Institutions ought to have appropriate
policies, and procedures that guide innovations arising
from students, staff and collaborators.
If we look at the world as one big global village
where resources should be distributed in an egalitarian way, the concepts of distributive and commutative
justice become important. It is hoped globalization
will result in widespread innovations and improvement in average incomes and LICs will be expected
to grow rapidly. ’In this "win-win" perspective, the
importance of nation-states fades as the "global village" grows and market integration and prosperity take
hold’ (Scott 2001). The HICs, where many research
initiatives in LICs are incubated and funded, should
routinely embrace a humanistic world-view. We should
all create and honor common values that will uphold
ethical conduct of research across the world. Many
LICs were plundered by colonialists and were left
in unbalanced treaties that favored the HICs to continue unfair pillage of natural resources from LICs.
The sharing of research resources from HICs to LICs
shows the universal moral duty to support victims of
global economic order and to respond to humanitarian
needs while consciously paying attention to those in
greatest need (Rawls 2001) Any innovative research
or development endeavors being designed or funded
globally ought to prioritize topics that will better the
underserved populations. Ethical research will help us
dignify the lives of vulnerable communities that we
commonly engage and prioritize the needs of least
advantaged.
Beyond the design of quality scientific proposals and ethical implementation of approved research
protocols, ethical issues may also arise during publication (Beisiegel 2010). The same applies to sharing
of benefits at the commercialisation stage of innovations. It is therefore also important that beyond
ethical issues during design, data collection and analysis, the investigators and ethical review committees
should consider any other issues that may arise at
manufacturing, marketing, promotion and even during continuous improvement of subsequent innovative
products (Miles, Munilla, & Covin 2004).
5 RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES AND
THE REVIEW PROCESS
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are multidisciplinary, independent groups of individuals appointed
to review research protocols involving human beings
to help ensure in particular that the dignity, fundamental rights, safety, and well-being of research
participants are duly respected and protected (Council
of Europe 2012; UNESCO 2005). The primary role
of a REC is to evaluate research proposals for ethical implications, foreseeable research outcomes, and
potential consequences of research results for society.
‘Society’can encompass both local and wider contexts
and may include the potential interests of future generations. RECs aims to safeguard participants’ rights,
dignity, safety, and well-being. They also put into consideration value deliberation based on the principle
of justice. This requires that the benefits and burdens
of research are distributed fairly among all groups and
classes in society, taking into account in particular age,
gender, economic status, culture and ethnic considerations (Eckstein 1992). Further to this they provide
the independent advice to the appointing authority,
researchers, funding agencies and professionals on
the extent to which proposals for research studies
comply with recognized ethical standards (ALLEA
2017; European Union 2013; Scherzinger & Robbert
2017).
The REC review process allows for critical evaluation of the ethical soundness of a data collection
process for the purpose of scientific and technological development (Kass, Hyder, Ajuwon, AppiahPoku,
& Barsdorf 2007). Although it comes at the initial
phase of a project, the review process ideally is not
restricted to pre-project phase. It is a dynamic process
that should encompass the lifetime of the project from
application for funding, through the design stage, to
completion of the work, its publication and the application of the results. Throughout this process, every
opportunity is taken by the REC to ensure ethical and
scientific conduct of research. RECs are responsible
for acting primarily in the interest of research participants and concerned communities. Furthermore,
they take into account the interests, needs and safety
of researchers who are trying to undertake research
(Kruger, Ndebele, & Horn 2014).
In Kenya, RECs are accredited by the National
Commission for Science Technology and Innovation.
During constitution and accreditation, research ethics
committee are provided with terms of reference that
define their mandate (NACOSTI 2017). Any research
involving humans or has direct effect on human life
must be approved by an accredited REC in Kenya.
Ideally all research and innovations require ethical
14
based on evidence collected to support prototype.
Often these evidence comprise of the novel narratives
supported by data generated through research (Fassin
2000). One of the common ethical issues that arises in
the innovation environment is related to the claim of
intellectual property ownership. when improvement is
made on an existing undeveloped rudimentary of idea,
technology or product. Innovation from institutions
may be further complicated by the context in which
it has been developed. For instance, in the case of a
laboratory set up with multiple persons and efforts,
integrity is likely to be at stake. The status of different staff who may contribute directly or indirectly
to an innovation – from the professor to laboratory
assistants – can create problems. The source of funding if not addressed right from the beginning through
formal documentation (such as memoranda of understanding and agreements) can also raise conflicts and
even ethical issues. However, all these can be overcome if there is a culture of integrity based on good
governance, best practice and institutional support
for researchers. Institutions ought to have appropriate
policies, and procedures that guide innovations arising
from students, staff and collaborators.
If we look at the world as one big global village
where resources should be distributed in an egalitarian way, the concepts of distributive and commutative
justice become important. It is hoped globalization
will result in widespread innovations and improvement in average incomes and LICs will be expected
to grow rapidly. ’In this "win-win" perspective, the
importance of nation-states fades as the "global village" grows and market integration and prosperity take
hold’ (Scott 2001). The HICs, where many research
initiatives in LICs are incubated and funded, should
routinely embrace a humanistic world-view. We should
all create and honor common values that will uphold
ethical conduct of research across the world. Many
LICs were plundered by colonialists and were left
in unbalanced treaties that favored the HICs to continue unfair pillage of natural resources from LICs.
The sharing of research resources from HICs to LICs
shows the universal moral duty to support victims of
global economic order and to respond to humanitarian
needs while consciously paying attention to those in
greatest need (Rawls 2001) Any innovative research
or development endeavors being designed or funded
globally ought to prioritize topics that will better the
underserved populations. Ethical research will help us
dignify the lives of vulnerable communities that we
commonly engage and prioritize the needs of least
advantaged.
Beyond the design of quality scientific proposals and ethical implementation of approved research
protocols, ethical issues may also arise during publication (Beisiegel 2010). The same applies to sharing
of benefits at the commercialisation stage of innovations. It is therefore also important that beyond
ethical issues during design, data collection and analysis, the investigators and ethical review committees
should consider any other issues that may arise at
manufacturing, marketing, promotion and even during continuous improvement of subsequent innovative
products (Miles, Munilla, & Covin 2004).
5 RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES AND
THE REVIEW PROCESS
Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are multidisciplinary, independent groups of individuals appointed
to review research protocols involving human beings
to help ensure in particular that the dignity, fundamental rights, safety, and well-being of research
participants are duly respected and protected (Council
of Europe 2012; UNESCO 2005). The primary role
of a REC is to evaluate research proposals for ethical implications, foreseeable research outcomes, and
potential consequences of research results for society.
‘Society’can encompass both local and wider contexts
and may include the potential interests of future generations. RECs aims to safeguard participants’ rights,
dignity, safety, and well-being. They also put into consideration value deliberation based on the principle
of justice. This requires that the benefits and burdens
of research are distributed fairly among all groups and
classes in society, taking into account in particular age,
gender, economic status, culture and ethnic considerations (Eckstein 1992). Further to this they provide
the independent advice to the appointing authority,
researchers, funding agencies and professionals on
the extent to which proposals for research studies
comply with recognized ethical standards (ALLEA
2017; European Union 2013; Scherzinger & Robbert
2017).
The REC review process allows for critical evaluation of the ethical soundness of a data collection
process for the purpose of scientific and technological development (Kass, Hyder, Ajuwon, AppiahPoku,
& Barsdorf 2007). Although it comes at the initial
phase of a project, the review process ideally is not
restricted to pre-project phase. It is a dynamic process
that should encompass the lifetime of the project from
application for funding, through the design stage, to
completion of the work, its publication and the application of the results. Throughout this process, every
opportunity is taken by the REC to ensure ethical and
scientific conduct of research. RECs are responsible
for acting primarily in the interest of research participants and concerned communities. Furthermore,
they take into account the interests, needs and safety
of researchers who are trying to undertake research
(Kruger, Ndebele, & Horn 2014).
In Kenya, RECs are accredited by the National
Commission for Science Technology and Innovation.
During constitution and accreditation, research ethics
committee are provided with terms of reference that
define their mandate (NACOSTI 2017). Any research
involving humans or has direct effect on human life
must be approved by an accredited REC in Kenya.
Ideally all research and innovations require ethical
14