1. What do you understand by ‘research ethics’?

Research ethics in legal research and writing refers to the set of principles and
guidelines that govern the morally acceptable conduct of legal research and the
presentation of its findings. These principles aim to ensure the integrity, validity, and
trustworthiness of legal scholarship, as well as to protect the rights and interests of
those involved in or affected by the research.

Key aspects of research ethics in this context include:

 Honesty and Integrity: Researchers must conduct their work with honesty,
avoiding any form of fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation of data,
sources, or findings.
 Attribution and Plagiarism: Proper attribution of sources is crucial.

Plagiarism, which involves presenting someone else's work as one's own, is a

serious ethical violation. Researchers must accurately cite and acknowledge all
sources used in their work.

 Confidentiality and Privacy: If the research involves human participants or

sensitive data, researchers have a duty to protect their confidentiality and
privacy. This includes obtaining informed consent, anonymizing data where
appropriate, and securely storing research materials.
 Objectivity and Impartiality: Researchers should strive for objectivity in their
analysis and interpretation of legal materials. They should avoid bias and ensure
that their personal opinions or beliefs do not unduly influence their research
findings.
 Transparency and Disclosure: Researchers should be transparent about their
research methods, data sources, and any potential conflicts of interest. This
allows others to assess the validity and reliability of their work.
 Respect for Persons and the Law: Research should be conducted with respect
for the dignity and rights of individuals and in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations.

In the context of legal writing, research ethics also extends to:

 Accurate and Fair Representation of the Law: Legal writers must accurately
and fairly represent the law, avoiding any distortion or misinterpretation of legal
sources.
 Proper Use of Legal Authority: Legal arguments should be supported by
relevant and valid legal authority. Researchers should avoid using outdated or
overruled cases or misrepresenting the holding of a case.
 Respectful Discourse: Legal writing should be conducted in a respectful and
professional tone, avoiding personal attacks or derogatory language.
By adhering to these ethical principles, legal researchers and writers can ensure that
their work is credible, trustworthy, and contributes meaningfully to the legal field.

2. What are the objectives for research ethics?

Research ethics serves several crucial objectives, all aimed at upholding the integrity of
the research process and protecting the interests of those involved or affected by it.
Here are some of the primary objectives:

1. Protecting Research Participants:

 Minimizing Harm: A core objective is to minimize any potential harm to research

participants, whether physical, psychological, social, or economic. This includes
ensuring their safety, well-being, and dignity throughout the research process.
 Ensuring Informed Consent: Research ethics emphasizes the importance of
obtaining informed consent from participants. This means providing them with
complete information about the research, including its purpose, procedures,
risks, and benefits, and ensuring that their participation is voluntary.
 Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality: Maintaining the privacy and
confidentiality of research participants is essential. This involves safeguarding
their personal information, anonymizing data where possible, and ensuring that
research findings are reported in a way that does not identify individuals.

2. Promoting Scientific Integrity:

 Ensuring Honesty and Accuracy: Research ethics aims to ensure that

research is conducted with honesty and integrity. This includes avoiding
fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation of data, as well as ensuring the
accuracy and reliability of research findings.
 Preventing Plagiarism: Proper attribution of sources is crucial to maintain
academic integrity. Research ethics seeks to prevent plagiarism by requiring
researchers to accurately cite and acknowledge all sources used in their work.
 Promoting Objectivity and Impartiality: Researchers should strive for
objectivity in their work, minimizing bias and ensuring that their personal beliefs
or interests do not unduly influence their research findings.

3. Upholding Public Trust:

 Enhancing Credibility: By adhering to ethical principles, researchers can

enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of their work, fostering public trust in
research findings.
 Promoting Accountability: Research ethics promotes accountability by
establishing clear standards of conduct for researchers and providing
mechanisms for addressing ethical violations.
  Serving the Interests of Society: Ultimately, research ethics seeks to ensure
that research is conducted in a way that benefits society as a whole, while
respecting the rights and interests of individuals.

4. Ensuring Compliance with Regulations:

 Meeting Legal and Professional Standards: Research ethics helps

researchers comply with relevant laws, regulations, and professional standards
governing research conduct.
 Facilitating Ethical Review: Ethical guidelines provide a framework for ethical
review boards or committees to assess research proposals and ensure that they
meet ethical standards.

By pursuing these objectives, research ethics plays a vital role in ensuring that research
is conducted responsibly, ethically, and in a way that benefits both individuals and
society.

3. What are the principles and standards sought to be observed and

attained?

Research is a rigorous and systematic search to solve a social or legal problem or

create new knowledge necessary to support legal decision making. Standards in legal
research and writing are aimed at ensuring accuracy, clarity and legal coherence in
legal arguments. The following are the key criteria to look for in legal research and
writing:
I. Intellectual Standards
1. Intellectual Honesty
It refers to honesty in acquisition, analysis and transmission of ideas. Legal
research must abide by the principle of honesty and ensure that all information is
accurately represented and sourced. This is done by citing other’s work from
which ideas and arguments have been borrowed.
Similarly, all positions of the cited work should be properly mentioned regardless
of how inconvenient and abrasive they are with political and religious authorities
as far as they contribute to the issues under research.
2. Intellectual Independence/Precision and Accuracy
Legal arguments should be founded on precise interpretations of laws, legal
precedents and relevant literature publications. To this end, the researcher
should not just report but analyse, classify, categorize, contextualise, assess and
evaluate the relevant literature. It is imperative that reasoning is developed in
works with little regard to “authorities”.
3. Factuality
Claims in a legal paper, whether or not they offer new findings in the concerned
field, must be supported by factual evidence. This is a borrowed scientific
 methodology where logical and well-reasoned arguments show their supporting
authorities be it; case law, statutes, or peer-reviewed literature’
II. Formal Standards
1. Structure and Organisation
Legal research papers often follow a structured format to aid the reader follow
the arguments stated therein. There is a general proposed structure that is
typically referred to: 1 cover sheet, 2 outline table of contents, 3 table of contents,
4 list of abbreviations, 5 main text, 6 multi-lingual summary, 7 comprehensive
bibliography, 8 table of legislation, 9 table of jurisprudence, 10 appendix, 11
index.
2. Citation and Referencing
The citation style to be employed within the legal research paper should be
consistent throughout the paper for ease of facilitating further research. Although
the citation style defers greatly depending on the location and disciplines
concerned, there is a generally universal principle to citations: logic, precision
and accuracy.
Citations are to be made when:
 Drawing from considerations and works of others.
 Presenting information that is not immediately evident and must be
substantiated.
When there lacks ample space in the footnotes, refer to a source that presents
the scholarly work in detail and write “…with further references”

3. Clarity and Style

The language utilised within the legal paper should be clear and concise without
needless embellishments that may prove unnecessary. The research paper
should be short and concentrated. To that end, constant review of the work
should be done to make the argument as concise as possible without losing
substance and the flow of reasonable, logical thought (maintained by careful
selection of prepositions, conjunctions or other logical connections).
4. Use of Abbreviation and Terminology
All terminology used within the paper in the context of the argument in the
research paper should be clearly stated and defined in relation to the legal paper.
Abbreviations for statutes and treaties and regulations should be that which is
common in use and should be defined. Refer to the individual norm as precisely
as possible (which article, section, sub-section, phrase, number etc.)
III. Content Standards
Content standards for ethics in research refer to the benchmarks and guidelines that
govern the responsible conduct of research. These standards ensure the integrity,
credibility, and social responsibility of the research process and its outcomes. Below
are the key content standards:
1. Honesty and Accuracy
Researchers must present accurate data, findings, and methodologies without
fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation. This standard promotes trust within
the academic and public communities.
Example: Accurately reporting data, even when it does not support the
hypothesis, is crucial to maintain the validity of research.
2. Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
Research involving humans or animals must ensure safety, respect, and care.
Adherence to guidelines such as the Declaration of Helsinki (for humans) or
Animal Welfare Acts is essential.
Example: Ethical standards require informed consent for participants and minimal
harm or distress for both human and animal subjects.
3. Transparency and Openness
Researchers must provide a clear, detailed account of their methods and findings
to allow replication and verification by others.
Example: Open-access research and detailed methodological appendices
support transparency.
4. Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Researchers must disclose any personal or financial interests that may influence
their work to avoid bias or ethical compromise.
Example: A pharmaceutical researcher funded by a drug company must disclose
this relationship when publishing results.
5. Data Management
Researchers must handle data responsibly, ensuring its integrity, security, and
proper storage. Data sharing, when appropriate, must respect confidentiality and
privacy agreements.
Example: Securely storing sensitive participant information ensures compliance
with privacy laws like GDPR.
6. Accountability in Collaboration
In collaborative research, all contributors must take responsibility for their roles
and ensure ethical standards are maintained across the project.
Example: Team members should agree on authorship criteria and address
disputes transparently.
 7. Non-Discrimination and Inclusivity
Research practices must avoid discrimination based on race, gender, age,
disability, or any other characteristic. Inclusivity enriches research validity and
relevance.
Example: Studies on health conditions should consider diverse populations for
generalizable results.
8. Peer Review and Publication Ethics
Ethical research includes proper peer review and adherence to publication
guidelines to prevent duplicate submissions, predatory journals, or
unsubstantiated claims.
Example: Submitting the same article to multiple journals simultaneously violates
publication ethics.
9. Environmental Responsibility
Researchers should consider the environmental impact of their work and strive to
minimize harm to the environment
Conclusion
Adhering to research ethics isn’t just about following rules—it’s about protecting people,
ensuring trust, and advancing meaningful knowledge. When researchers respect these
principles, they produce work that is credible and beneficial to society. Ethical lapses,
like dishonesty or disregard for participants, damage both individuals and the research
community. As such, strict adherence to research ethics is essential for achieving
integrity, fairness, and progress in all scholarly endevours.
4. Briefly discuss with appropriate illustrations breaches of research
ethics?

A breach to research ethics entails misconduct that is either intentional or reckless or as a

result of negligence. this may lead to distortion or total erosion of the information to be passed
therefore
The breaches to research include;
PLAGIARISM
This refers to intellectual theft, whereby one copys someones work and does not credit the
source with the sole intentions of making the work "theirs".
In some cases such as those listed below parties to this breach have faced severe
repercussions i.e
IN THE CASE OF ;Michael LACour – a political scientist
Michael LaCour, a political scientist, fabricated data for a highly cited study on political
persuasion and same-sex marriage. His work was published in Science to great fanfare before it
was discovered that the data had been fabricated. The Consequences that : LaCour's
publication was retracted, and he was placed under investigation by his academic institution,
UCLA. His career and academic credibility were severely harmed, and other scholars were
misled by his work.
Though no court case was filed, the retracting of the article was considered the academic
community's way of public and professional accountability.
Source of this case: "Researcher's Data Fabrication Scandal Shakes Political Science." (The
New York Times, 2015).
FABRICATION
This is the forging and making up of data and presenting the same as if they are true.
A major court case was that of Hwang Woo Suk, a prominent South Korean scientist who
gained international recognition for his claims to have created human embryonic stem cells
through cloning-a major breakthrough in biomedical research. His work was published in
prestigious journals like Science in 2004 and 2005. However, it was later revealed that Hwang
had fabricated data in his studies, and much of the research was falsified.
In 2006, the truth came to light after investigations by Seoul National University and other
independent researchers. The claimed stem cell lines developed by him did not exist, and his
methods were not scientifically valid.
These were revealed after Seoul National University and other independent investigators
conducted investigations. It was then realized that the stem cell lines he claimed to have
produced did not exist, and his methods were scientifically invalid.
Korean Cloning Scientist Hwang Woo-suk Sentenced to Prison" – BBC News, May 26, 2009.
BBC News article
Hwang Woo-suk's Falsified Research on Stem Cells: The Scandal" – The New York Times,
December 2005.
NY Times article
FALSIFICATION
This involves the fabrication of research materials, equipment, or processes or omitting or
changing data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research
record.
In 1998, a paper published by Andrew Wakefield in the medical journal The Lancet suggested a
link between the MMR vaccination and autism. The highly publicized study by Wakefield
reported on only 12 children and claimed that the vaccine was responsible for bowel disease
and autism. The conclusions of this study resulted in widespread panic and a marked decline in
vaccination rates, especially in the United Kingdom.
Further research showed that Wakefield fabricated the data in his research; he had actually
changed the children's medical history who took part in his study, and misrepresented some
symptoms' timing for the purpose of falsely supporting the claims.
Ethical Violations: Wakefield did not receive ethical approval for the study, nor did he declare
financial conflicts of interest. It later emerged that he had been funded by lawyers involved in
lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. Selected Reporting: Key data which belied his
hypothesis were left out of the paper.
Although the case of Wakefield did not lead to a criminal court case, the GMC investigated the
matter, and in 2010, Wakefield was found guilty of serious professional misconduct. This
included dishonesty and abuse of children involved in the study. As a result, he was struck off
the medical register and was prohibited from practicing medicine in the UK.
Citations on the matter maybe found below
"Andrew Wakefield: A Study in Deception" – The Guardian, January 2011.
The Guardian article
"The Lancet Retracts Wakefield's Paper on Autism and the MMR Vaccine" – The Lancet,
February 2004.
The Lancet retraction
"The GMC and Andrew Wakefield" – General Medical Council (GMC), May 2010.
GMC statement
FAILURE TO OBTAIN INFORMED CONSENT
Deception: Not providing sufficient information to potential participants regarding a study, for
them to make an informed decision to participate or not.
In 2023, The Daily Nation reported on a clinical trial done by KEMRI in collaboration with other
partners, including international pharmaceutical companies, to test new HIV treatment options.
The experimental drugs were to be tested on HIV patients in Kenya, though there were
complaints that informed consent had not been sought from those participants.
Following the allegations, calls were made for an investigation into the trial and a review of
clinical trial regulations in Kenya. The Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council and the
Kenya National Commission for Human Rights were called upon to assess whether the trial
adhered to national and international ethical standards. The case received widespread media
attention, and there was increased public interest in clinical trials in Kenya, especially those
targeting vulnerable populations.: If the allegations are confirmed, this case could lead to stricter
international partners.
Concerns Over Consent in KEMRI HIV Treatment Trial – The Daily Nation, April 2023.
The Daily Nation article
VIOLATION OF PRIVACY
Disclosure or failure to handle confidential or private information regarding participants without
their consent.
One of the major cases in Kenya, regarding violation of privacy, involves unauthorized release
of information to the media. The case occurred in 2019 when The Standard newspaper ran a
story on private information about the personal life of people who were engaged in a court case
concerning the custody of their children. It had, amongst other redundant information,
particulars including names and addresses and also personal family affairs, both of no public
interest and clearly an infringement of the right to privacy for private persons.
Although the case did not go to a criminal court hearing, the Media Council of Kenya made a
ruling on the case and ordered the involved media house to offer an apology and compensation
to those affected. This case also made certain that the role of the ODPC was quite well echoed
as an office charged with enforcement of the Data Protection Act, 2019, in Kenya. This law
seeks to protect the privacy of individuals against the increasing cases of data breaches.
"Kenya Media Faces Backlash Over Unauthorized Disclosure of Personal Information" – The
Standard, 2019.
The Standard article
"Data Protection Act, 2019: Safeguarding Privacy in Kenya" – Office of the Data Protection
Commissioner, Kenya.
ODPC official site

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
This is where a researcher conducts research for his or her personal, financial or professional
interest rather than for the objective of the research.
For instance, in Harvey’s case , Harvey and others had paid the victim $20,000 for what they
thought was cannabis but actually it was “a load of rubbish”. The defendants demanded their
money back. The court accepted that while the defendants believed that they had grounds for
making the demand, the contract was illegal and therefore there was no legal right to claim the
money.
The defendants however reinforced their demand by kidnapping the victim, his wife and child
threatening to cause the serious physical injury if the money was not repaid. They were
therefore held guilty for blackmail due to the threats they made. This shows that even if
demand is based on a perceived right, using menaces to reinforce that demand is a crime.

MISINTERPRETATION OF AUTHORSHIP
This occurs where authorship is given to individuals who have not contributed to the research.
For instance, in Alfred’s case v. Catalda Fine Arts where Catalda Fine Arts claimed copyright
over reproductions of an older art implying authorship due to the artistic effort
showcased in the engraving. The issue was whether the engraving skill guaranteed the original
authorship. The court however rejected the claim and stated that the minor unoriginal variations
did not constitute new authorship sufficient for copyright.
The court distinguished between genuine creative input and mechanical reproduction.

Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. (1951)

FAILURE TO ADHERE TO ETHICAL GUIDELINES AND PROTOCOLS

There are ethical guidelines on how research should be carried out. This has been outlined in
documents such as the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for human subjects research. It
ensures that the well-being of participants as well as their rights are safeguarded.
A good example is that of the researchers at the Kenya Medical Research Institute who filed
a petition alleging discrimination and violation of their property rights were infringed upon. The
court found out that the institute had indeed violated the petitioner’s rights.
This shows the critical importance of adhering to ethical guidelines and protocols so as to
protect the rights of all individuals involved in research activities.
“the Kenya law reports-KLR -petition 21 of 2013”

5. What are the consequences for breach of research ethics?

Just like all the other crimes have consequences,so is breaching of research ethics.
The consequences for breach of research ethics are:

[Link] OF REPUTATION
An ethical breach in research can lead to a loss of reputation for the individual and that of the
firm they [Link] the trust of respondents might be challenging.

In the case of MOORE V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CARLIFORNIA (1990)

Regents of the University of Carlifornia did not get John Moore’s consent to use his spleen for
research during treatment for [Link] sued for lack of informed [Link]
researchers were charged due to lack of obtaining informed consent and exploitation of
research subjects leading to loss of reputation to both the researchers and the university.

Reference from California Supreme Court 271 [Link].146(1990).

[Link] CONSEQUENCES
The most legal consequences include fines,lawsuits and criminal charges.

In the case of HAVASUPAI TRIBE [Link] BOARD OF REGENTS(2010)

In 1990-1994 researchers from Arizona State University collected DNA samples from 400
members of Havasupai tribe to study the tribe’s high incidence of type || [Link] they
later used without proper consent for studies on [Link] tribe filed a lawsuit against the
university due to misuse of their genetic [Link] case was settled and the tribe received
700000 dollars in compensation and their blood samples returned.

Content licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

[Link] LOSSES
Breaching of research ethics leads to financial losses as the accountable firm loses business
opportunities or might lose a lot of fund to pay as fine in courts of law.

In the case of TAUS V. LOFTUS (2002)

Researcher Elizabeth Loftus investigated the background of Jane Doe,a subject in a recovered
memory case and published an article without [Link] Taus,sued for invasion of
[Link] legal proceedings resulted in financial burden for both parties due to prolonged
litigation.

Source from Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 9:147-162.

[Link] OF LICENSE AND JOB

Breaching of research ethics leads to job loss as the researcher might be dismissed and
[Link] could mean the end of a career as persons license is taken away.

In the case of PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN KENYA(2024)

The Pharmacy and Poisons Board suspended four pharmaceutical technologist for professional
[Link] were suspended for two years for allowing unlicensed individuals to access
their professional [Link] technologist had not gathered enough information from the
unlicensed individuals then proceeded to allowing them oversee operations.
Reference:Pharmacy and Poisons Board,Chief Executive Officer 2024.

5. RETRACTION OF PUBLISHED PAPERS

Research misconduct,such as data fabrication of falsification can lead to the retraction of
published paper.

In the case of JOHN DARSEE V. HARVARD UNIVERSITY

While at Harvard University,Darsee was found to have fabricated data in multiple
[Link] revealed misconduct extending back to his undergraduate [Link]
a result numerous papers were retracted and his medical license revoked.

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

6. ACADEMIC SANCTIONS
Academic institutions enforce research ethics to maintain integrity and uphold academic
[Link] of these can lead to sanctions.

In the case of FRANKLIN MITHIKA LINTURI V. ETHICS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION

COMMISSION (2018)
A student in the University of Nairobi was deregistered over allegations of presenting falsified
academic qualifications.

Reference from Constitutional Petition 7 of 2018 KEHC 9108(KLR)

[Link] SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

Scientific integrity refers to the adherence to ethical principles and professional standards
essential for reliability of [Link] of research ethics can severely damage the
trustworthiness of science.

In the case of [Link] DAVID AND DR THEREZA KARI

Investigation into allegations against the two doctors over falsified data in immunology
[Link]. Baltimore was cleared,the case raised awareness of the importance of ethical
scrutiny in collaborative research.
Reference from Craig Conway,LLM.