Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This scoping review maps research ethics and integrity challenges and best practices encountered by research actors in the DACH countries (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland), including researchers, funders, publishers, research ethics committees, and policymakers, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic brought research and, in turn, research ethics and integrity, into public focus. This review identified challenges related to changing research environments, diversity in research, publication and dissemination trends, scientific literacy and trust in science, recruitment, research redundancy and study termination, placebo and human challenge studies, data management, and informed consent. These challenges are linked to two crucial factors: first, actors in the DACH research ecosystem lacked a sound knowledge base to assess the risks and benefits of research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, researchers in the DACH region faced pressure from policymakers, funders, and the public to generate relevant, timely, and consistent findings to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, this review highlights best practices to mitigate the effects of future crises on research ethics and integrity, including enhanced cooperation among actors, continuous ethics assessments, and support for public scientific literacy.

Keywords

Research ethics research integrity crisis research governance COVID-19 pandemic Europe Germany Switzerland Austria

Introduction

According to former German chancellor Angela Merkel, the COVID-19 pandemic put Europe to a test unlike any seen since the Second World War (Der Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2020). Some praised Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (collectively referred to as the DACH region) for effectively mitigating the worst impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the public, attributing their success, in part, to evidence-based decision-making and the strategic leveraging of their resources (e.g. Desson et al., 2020). According to Alena Buyx, chairwoman of the German Ethics Council, it was science that “saved” society from the direst implications of the pandemic (Marx, 2022), with the German-led firm BioNTech producing the first European Commission-approved vaccine in just 9 months (Pfizer, 2021).

When “all eyes [were] on science” (Varwig, 2020), ethics came to the forefront of public discourse. In the DACH region, many people found themselves immersed in discussions about ethics, grappling with topics such as mask and vaccine mandates, distribution challenges, closures of schools and day-care centers, and social inequality. Crucially, the COVID-19 pandemic raised the stakes of science (Illetschko, 2020), positioning researchers as crisis problem solvers. Research actors—including researchers, funders, research ethics committees, publishers, and policymakers—operated within a landscape characterized by high ethical tension and unknown risks and benefits, creating a storm of impediments to ethically sound and high-quality research.

A growing field of literature from the DACH region addresses research ethics and integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our review of this literature revealed that research ethics and integrity issues resulted primarily from two core factors: first, the pressure researchers faced to achieve relevant, quick, and consistent results and, second, actors’ attempts to weigh the risks and benefits of research to society under novel circumstances. In addition, the literature suggested best practices to mitigate research ethics and integrity challenges in future crises. These included assessing the risks and benefits of research on an ongoing basis, fostering increased collaboration among stakeholders, and improving public scientific literacy.

Methods

This paper resulted from a scoping review conducted on behalf of the EU Horizon Europe-funded Proactive Pandemic Crisis Ethics and Integrity Framework (PREPARED) project. Scoping reviews identify literature speaking to broadly defined research questions (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). They cast a wider net than systematic literature reviews, pinpointing knowledge gaps and core concepts and thereby defining the “scope” of a body of literature (Munn et al., 2018). This scoping review, which adapted Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) five-step framework, was written as part of a series of language reports conducted within the PREPARED project, which aims to map research ethics and integrity challenges across the globe while taking language bias (e.g. Stern and Kleijnen, 2020) into account.

The German language boasts the largest number of native speakers in the EU, with over 90 million considering it their mother tongue (Lobin, 2021). Though an “internationalization of research” (e.g. Dinkel et al., 2004) has compelled many German-speaking authors, especially in technical, medical, and natural science disciplines, to publish in English, German-language publications are still prevalent, particularly in the humanities and social sciences (Gnutzmann, 2012). Moreover, the German print media claims the largest readership in Europe (Eshkerat et al., 2022). A comprehensive review of German-language literature is hence essential to understanding the challenges faced by research actors during the COVID-19 pandemic at the global level.

The first stage of the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework involves the identification of a research question. The research questions for this review were pre-chosen by members of the PREPARED consortium to ensure findings from the language reports could feed into the development of an operational research ethics and integrity framework that safeguards key ethical values. In contrast to systematic reviews, which aim to assess the quality of evidence in the literature and select narrowly defined research questions, scoping reviews focus on broad research questions to allow for a “comprehensive exploration” of sources on a given topic or in a given field (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). The research questions were as follows: What research ethics and integrity challenges are foremost and/or peculiar to research in a sudden and unexpected crisis? What is the guidance for addressing research ethics and integrity challenges associated with research in a sudden and unexpected crisis? As few other crises in the DACH region have generated discussions related to research ethics and integrity, the research team decided to focus exclusively on literature related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The second stage of the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework involves the identification of relevant studies. The research team (CS and LT) approached this step by choosing German-language search terms related to the research questions, based on the researchers’ knowledge of the local context.¹ Relevant sources were summarized and ordered in a literature review matrix, designed according to the concept matrix method of Klopper et al. (2007). Using the key search descriptors, 72 sources were identified, including 26 academic papers, 22 news articles, 9 books, 5 presentations, 5 blog posts, 3 gray literature reports, 1 project summary, and 1 legal analysis. As Google has the capacity to recognize non-academic publications, the research team (CS and LT) initiated their search there, identifying 53 sources. Additionally, the research team searched Google Scholar, identifying 19 sources. Subsequently, Scopus was also searched but yielded no further relevant results.

The third stage of the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) scoping review approach involves the selection of sources. The research team (CS and LT) approached this step by defining inclusion and exclusion criteria.² Given the importance of non-commercial and unpublished work to academic reviews (Paez, 2017), the research team included gray literature, news articles, and opinion pieces in the review. Though the research team sought German-language publications, English-language publications were included if they spoke to contexts and discourses relevant to the DACH region. When revising the review matrix, the research team (CS and LT) eliminated sources which pertained to forthcoming projects or papers (n = 5), addressed general ethical challenges in crises rather than research ethics and integrity challenges (n = 17), or spoke to research ethics and integrity challenges in other crises (n = 3). This resulted in the inclusion of 46 sources, including 19 news articles, 12 academic papers, 4 books, 5 presentations, 4 blog posts, and 2 gray literature reports.

The fourth stage of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework entails the charting of selected sources. While Arksey and O’Malley (2005) recommend charting sources according to the author, year, study methods, design, sample size, location, study limitations, and recommendations, this review deviated from this approach, as many relevant sources were non-academic. Instead, the research team (CS and LT) followed Aromataris and Munn (2020), who note that scoping reviews may opt for content analysis in the charting phase to “investigate the occurrence of concepts.” First, the research questions were segmented into four sections in the literature review matrix: (1) research ethics challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) research integrity challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, (3) research ethics governance and oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (4) guidance for addressing research ethics and integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Text from each source containing relevant insights was then extracted into these sections. Research ethics refers here to “the application of fundamental ethical principles and legislation to scientific research” (European Commission, n.d.), while integrity may be defined as “adherence to the highest standards of rigor” in research (Evroux, 2022).

The research team (CS) then followed a qualitative evidence synthesis approach (e.g. Flemming and Noyes, 2021), openly coding the extracted text to identify potential areas of similarity to be developed into descriptive themes; this exercise yielded 39 codes. Using an axial coding process, relationships were identified between codes (Williams and Moser, 2019), recognizing redundancy and subsequently consolidating codes. This process yielded the following codes: changing research environments, diversity in research, trust in science, research redundancy and prioritization, the effects of study termination, the use of placebos in research, human challenge studies in COVID-19 vaccine trials, changes to publication processes and trends, data management in research, changes to informed consent, public scientific literacy, and cooperation between research stakeholders. Additionally, following Flemming and Noyes (2021) and Grant and Booth (2009), in the process of code refinement, the research team (CS and LT) identified two analytical themes, hereafter referred to as core factors, from which all research ethics and integrity challenges could be abstracted: pressure faced by researchers and uncertainty in conducting risk–benefit analyses.

The final stage of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) scoping review framework involves the collation, summarization, and reporting of results. Despite the initial intention to categorize data into the four sections included in the literature review matrix, the codes indicated significant overlap between research ethics, integrity, and governance issues. Following Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) recommendation for thematic organization, the research team chose to present sources based on overarching themes and codes.

While the method presented herein provides a comprehensive overview of literature from the DACH region on research ethics and integrity challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are inherent limitations. Non-academic sources may present findings that have not undergone the peer-review process, introducing potential biases. Additionally, the reliance on German-language publications and the exclusion of sources related to other crises could introduce a geographic and contextual bias, potentially limiting the applicability of the findings to a broader research ethics and integrity landscape.

A protocol was not prepared for this review. The literature review matrix is available upon request to the corresponding author (CS).

Core factors

Research ethics and integrity challenges in the DACH region emanated from two fundamental factors. Firstly, the exigent demand from institutions, policymakers, funders, and the public for quick, relevant, and consistent results placed researchers under pressure, compromising their capacity to uphold research ethics and integrity. Secondly, researchers and research ethics committees trod uncharted territory when assessing the risks and benefits of research amidst a novel pandemic. In the following sections, these core factors are contextualized with insights gleaned from literature produced within the DACH region.

Research under pressure

During the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers were placed under high pressure to deliver timely, relevant, and consistent solutions, complicating ethical decision-making. The pandemic revealed a conflict between science as a time-consuming, meticulous endeavor and science as a crisis problem solver. In the words of Stefan Hornbostel of the German Center for Higher Education Research and Science Research, science is not fit to provide definitive answers to urgent crises; however, as it is driven by a commitment to addressing societal challenges, science “can’t simply refuse” (Illetschko, 2020).

Researchers in the DACH region were forced to balance their commitment to the scientific method with demands for speed, consistency, and relevance. Researchers were plagued by what Chan et al. (2020, p. 5) call the “curse and challenge of speed,” in which the urgent nature of a crisis contributes to impatience among policymakers and the public, and hence, increased external pressure to generate solutions. In addition, researchers needed to demonstrate the immediate relevance of their work. For example, early into the pandemic, a reviewer from the German Research Foundation (DFG) rejected one researcher’s proposal to sequence SARS-CoV-2 samples to identify connections between infected people, commenting that “[COVID-19] is not influenza, and therefore these variants do not play a special role” (Neumann and Rembold, 2021). Some actors also demanded consistency in scientific findings. For example, high-profile politicians like Armin Laschet, former chairman of the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), complained that scientists “change their opinion every few days” (Stöcker, 2020). These examples illustrate growing tensions between researchers’ commitments to the scientific method and societal demands.

The pressure to secure support from policymakers, funders, research ethics committees, and the public influenced several specific research ethics and integrity challenges. These challenges included changing research environments, a lack of diversity in research, shifting publication and dissemination trends, low scientific literacy and trust in science, and a recruitment crisis.

Changing research environments

Following the emergence of #ichbinhanna (I am Hannah), a viral campaign by German researchers for better working conditions at universities, the pandemic was seen as “the straw that broke the camel’s back” of academic workplace dynamics (Mittermeier, 2021). Precarious academic working environments, characterized by temporary, part-time contracts, and high competition for grants and scientific positions, compounded the pressure on researchers to deliver ground-breaking COVID-19-related research.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing inequalities in academia. As research institutions and schools alike mandated work- and study-from-home policies across much of the DACH region, women researchers were particularly burdened with childcare and other domestic tasks, thereby dedicating less time to their research (Gao et al., 2021, in Taschwer, 2022). This resulted in the publication of fewer women-authored manuscripts and a noticeable drop in citations when compared to male researchers, contributing to the underrepresentation of women’s perspectives in research (e.g. Miller et al., 2022, pp. 83–89).

Limits to international mobility exacerbated the pressure felt by researchers in academic settings. In the two decades before the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of international researchers to German researchers had doubled within German universities (Boytchev, 2020). Though scientific talent remained in high demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, international mobility restrictions hindered recruitment for research positions (Pichler, 2022). Gardner (2021) reported that, in April 2021, 31 out of 173 German diplomatic missions were granting no visas or only issuing them in exceptional cases, and the issuance of international student visas dropped by 40% compared to pre-pandemic levels. Considering the connection between international mobility and high-quality science (e.g. Rodrigues et al., 2016), a lag in international recruitment may have impacted the quality of research produced.

Lack of diversity in research

Research published during the COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by a high number of publications directly related to COVID-19 (Strobl and Roth, 2021). However, the number of unrelated project proposals decreased (Riccaboni and Verginer, 2022, in Taschwer, 2022). The ethics committee at Bielefeld University, for example, noted a decline in research projects from disciplines like psychology, health sciences, linguistics, and educational sciences during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a trend they attributed to uncertainty surrounding the effective adaptation of research in these fields to the conditions imposed by the crisis (Deutsche Netzwerk Gesundheitskompetenz, 2021). In addition, research ethics committees in Germany sometimes fast-tracked COVID-19-related proposals, side-lining assessments of projects on other topics (Ledford, 2021, in Fiske et al., 2021). This may have heightened expectations on researchers to align their research with the urgent needs posed by the pandemic, coming at the expense of other vital scientific endeavors.

A decrease in the diversity of research was seen at not only the topical but also at the methodological level. A “fixation on numbers” (Jünger, 2021) during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the increased marginalization of qualitative approaches, despite their central role in identifying and addressing urgent societal needs (Gamba et al., 2020). This trend was compounded by the adaptation of study designs to digital formats (e.g. Lattner and Rupprecht, 2022). While some empirical data collection instruments, like surveys, could be employed remotely, several qualitative methods, like ethnographic observation, could not be replaced with suitable knowledge-gaining substitutes (Bartmann et al., 2022; Dorschky et al., 2021). This may have limited the breadth of scientific inquiry, affecting research integrity.

Publication and dissemination trends

As publication typically requires long evaluation and feedback processes, many researchers, under pressure to make their findings available quickly, contributed to an “embargo” (Broer & Pröschel, 2021, in Mäder, 2022, p. 173) on traditional peer-review publication processes (Science Media Center Germany, 2020). Some chose to publicize their findings through pre-print servers and media press conferences. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic limited other informal methods of review, like scientific conferences (Breznau et al., 2020). Pre-prints and other forms of rapid dissemination allow the public, decision-makers, and journalists alike into the “machine room of knowledge production” (Bromme, 2022) by presenting results which are often preliminary. However, as these actors sometimes demonstrate little understanding of the scientific process, and considering trends in sensationalist reporting, the negative impacts of quick dissemination are prominently featured in literature from the DACH region.

The Heinsberg and Charité viral load studies in Germany serve as examples of the consequences of the media sensationalization of rapidly disseminated research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Carried out by a team of virologists in the German state of North Rhine Westphalia, the Heisenberg study, conducted in an early COVID-19 epicenter,³ concluded that infection fatality rates were lower than previously assumed, supporting the lifting of some pandemic-related measures. Before other scientists could scrutinize the results of the study, which were unveiled not through a peer-reviewed paper but via a press conference, the media had already promoted them. Since the public viewed these findings as conclusive, the study stoked the growing sentiment against COVID-19-related restrictions (Breznau, 2020). Similarly, pre-printed results of the study by Jones et al. (2020) carried out at the Charité Hospital in Berlin were misconstrued by the tabloid newspaper Bild. Bild claimed that the research was “grossly wrong” in its conclusion on the contagiousness of children, taking the findings presented in the study out of context (Kohler, 2020). The Bild report incited public outrage regarding possible restrictions, surfacing at a time when German decision-makers grappled with the decision to close schools and childcare centers. While scientists felt pressure to address urgent societal needs by disseminating their results promptly, they also witnessed the consequences of the misappropriation of their preliminary findings.

Low scientific literacy and trust in science

Within the interplay between science and politics, researchers assumed a role within a “decision-making triangle” during the COVID-19 pandemic, functioning as both advisors to politicians and informants to the media (Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg, 2020). According to Theresia Bauer, Minister for Science, Research, and Art in the German state of Baden–Württemberg, scientists became “popstars” who were not only praised but also criticized for their findings (Ministry of Science, Research, and Art of Baden–Württemberg, 2020). Policymakers frequently claimed that their decisions were based on conclusive scientific findings. However, these decisions were strongly influenced by political imperatives for consensus, compromise, and feasibility (Knobloch et al., 2023, p. 14), and the utilization of research results subject to ongoing debate within the scientific community to political ends eroded public confidence in science.

Though the public grasped the importance of science during the pandemic, their limited understanding of the scientific process weakened their confidence in research. A survey conducted by the Science Barometer in Germany in 2022 reported that 62% of respondents trusted scientists, either sometimes or completely (Wissenschaft im Dialog, 2022). However, the public often conceived of discrepancies in research findings as a “failure” of science during the COVID-19 pandemic (Jungert and Schuol, 2022), highlighting the need for improved public scientific literacy.

The Robert Koch Institute, a German government agency tasked with monitoring infectious diseases, gained popularity for “[feeding] society’s hunger for information” (Hallam, 2020), for example, through its weekly COVID-19 briefings and 7-day-incidence rate, which featured in many government speeches and media articles. However, overall, “data fatigue,” resulting from continuous exposure to large amounts of information, sometimes resulted in greater public frustration with scientific research (Fina et al., 2022), increasing pressure on scientists, policymakers, and journalists to communicate scientific findings in a variety of ways.

Recruitment

A recruitment crisis heightened the pressure faced by many researchers to conduct studies on COVID-19 prevention and treatment. In Germany, many studies competed for the same pool of research participants (Strech, 2023). This subsequently fed into a recruitment crisis which decreased the quality and ethical soundness of research. An overburdened participant pool, for example, can lead to a less representative sample or potential biases, reducing the generalizability of study findings.

Risk–benefit analyses

While under pressure from society and politicians, researchers, research ethics committees, and funders faced the challenge of performing risk–benefit analyses under novel conditions. Risk–benefit analyses, a vital element in ethical decision-making, appeared frequently in public discussions in the DACH region. For example, the German Ministry of Health encouraged citizens to weigh the risks and benefits of taking the vaccine (e.g. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2022; Paul Ehrlich Institute, 2022). However, risk–benefit analyses became considerably more challenging when extended to the assessment of research projects. Some recognized the increased risks to research participants and society posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Others, though, pointed to the wide-reaching potential benefits of COVID-19-related research, positing that exceptional circumstances arise in which higher risks can be justified by the high social value of treating or preventing COVID-19 (e.g. Faust et al., 2021a).

As risk–benefit analyses refer to the “systematic use of information to identify initiating events, causes, and consequences of these initiating events, and express risk (and benefit),” they are often based on earlier scientific findings and decisions (Aven, 2008). However, the unprecedented nature of the crisis left considerable room for controversy in these calculations, resulting in the emergence of several key research ethics and integrity dilemmas. These are related to research redundancy and study termination, placebos, and human challenge studies in COVID-19 vaccine trials, data management, and informed consent.

Research redundancy and study termination

As the COVID-19 virus spread across Europe, new funding opportunities for COVID-19 emerged, intensifying competition between researchers to submit relevant proposals (Faust et al., 2021a; Pearson, 2021; Strech, 2023). During the COVID-19 pandemic, research ethics committees had to estimate the potential societal value and the likelihood of success of the research projects (Faust et al., 2021b). In many cases, research proposals became redundant, lowering their anticipated benefits (Strech, 2023).

An analysis led by the University Hospital of Basel revealed that only 14 of 65 research projects with COVID-19 patients that were registered in Germany in 2020 were completed—a poor track record that was, in part, exacerbated by recruitment challenges (Eickemeier, 2021). High numbers of terminated studies in Germany skewed risk–benefit calculations. Society cannot reap the benefits of terminated research, though participants continue to shoulder its associated risks (Strech, 2023). Research ethics committees were thus tasked with determining each study’s likelihood of completion.

Placebos and human challenge studies in COVID-19 vaccine trials

COVID-19 vaccine studies proved highly controversial in the DACH region. Some perceived the use of placebos and human challenge trials, for example, as high risk. At the same time, there was a lack of agreement on the potential benefits associated with these approaches.

While placebos are crucial in determining the effectiveness of a new vaccine, ethical concerns arise when they are employed in clinical trials, especially when a similar vaccine has already been approved. Following the EU approval of the COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty, developed by German biotechnology company BioNTech, ethics committees questioned the decision to distribute a placebo to participants in other ongoing vaccine trials (Hasford, 2020). However, the initial scarcity of the vaccines that had already been approved introduced further complexity to deliberations on this issue (Brodmerkel, 2021).

In German-speaking Europe, human challenge studies—referring to the intentional infection of research participants—may arouse painful memories of the Nazi atrocities in Europe during the second world war (e.g. Jamrozik and Selgelid, 2021). While the potential of human challenge studies to generate social value may be high, this may not justify the risks they pose to the well-being of research participants (e.g. Shah et al., 2020, in Faust et al., 2021a). Strict approval procedures largely discouraged German scientists from opting for such studies during the COVID-19 pandemic (MDR with Hans Lilie, 2021)—a factor some linked to the disappointing results of some clinical trials, such as that of the German CureVac mRNA vaccine (Reich, 2021).

Data management

As the COVID-19 pandemic initiated a shift toward remote data collection methods, it instigated discussions on the data protection and management culture (Buyx, 2022) found throughout the DACH region. This culture, often described as restrictive, may result from factors like a history of surveillance under repressive communist and fascist regimes and strong EU data protection directives (e.g. Cottingham et al., 2016). The sentiment expressed by the former chairperson of Germany’s international working group on data protection in telecommunications, Maja Smoltczyk, that “data protection must not fall victim to the virus” (Drobinski, 2021) resonated with many. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some noted that remote data collection may pose high risks to participants in the absence of robust data management procedures. For example, Lattner and Rupprecht (2022, p. 38) identified the need for a stronger emphasis on data protection requirements when implementing digital methods in pedagogical research.

On the other hand, many viewed increased flows of data as an opportunity to maximize the benefits of research to society (e.g. Lesch et al., 2022). For example, a survey by Jungkunz et al. (2022) found that 87% of German physicians support the secondary use of COVID-19 treatment data for research, pointing to a wider willingness to improve data transfer and reuse mechanisms. This support was echoed by some politicians, such as Wolfgang Steiger of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who noted that “human protection must come before data protection” (Drobinski, 2021).

Informed consent

Some researchers sought to adapt conventional informed consent procedures to the novel circumstances introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic. These modifications, though, raised ethical concerns regarding autonomy and the protection of participants. Obtaining consent from ill patients, for example, constituted a logistical challenge (Faust et al., 2021a), prompting discussions on the ethical implications of remote informed consent methods, consent by proxy, consent waivers, and deferred consent (Voit et al., 2023). At the same time, therapeutic misconception, or the tendency of participants to mistake a study for a treatment, was prevalent in medical studies on COVID-19 (Faust et al., 2021a), leading participants to overestimate the potential benefits of research.

Best practices

The literature suggested three key best practices to mitigate the ethics and integrity challenges that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Firstly, risk–benefit analyses should be ongoing, and research actors should remain open to adapting research designs to novel circumstances. Secondly, cooperation should increase between researchers, policymakers, funders, publishers, and the media. Lastly, these actors should strive to improve public scientific literacy.

Ongoing risk–benefit analysis

To facilitate the identification of risks and benefits, research actors can implement ongoing analyses and remain flexible to non-traditional methods. As a central pillar of research ethics, informed consent should be adapted, rather than abandoned, during crises, for example, through the implementation of remote consent procedures (Voit et al., 2023). This adaptation allows researchers to engage with participants while maintaining physical distancing. While such adaptations may introduce new risks to research participants, research actors can conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the risks and benefits of new methods, as suggested by Jungkunz et al. (2022, pp. 17–18) in the context of secondary data usage.

Cooperation

Policymakers, researchers, funders, publishers, and the public should strengthen cooperation mechanisms, including validation processes in publication. To alleviate the recruitment crisis, Fiske et al. (2021), for example, propose a national coordinating body connecting funders, researchers, and the German healthcare system to identify linkages between research projects. To assure the quality of rapidly published findings, Breznau et al. (2020) suggest the formation of an ad hoc expert advisory board, as is common in third-party-funded projects, to oversee potentially important or controversial studies. Furthermore, the introduction of validation processes by pre-print platforms could enhance scientific communication. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, popular pre-print servers like bioRxiv and medRxiv introduced preliminary validation procedures, including a review by voluntary experts and flagging tools for readers to label content they believe to be questionable (Christian, 2022, p. 228).

Public scientific literacy

Furthermore, researchers and policymakers should enhance public awareness of the roles and limits of both science and politics. The public should understand that politicians do not make decisions based on conclusive scientific consensus. Instead, they must constantly assess findings from research that are often inconsistent or preliminary and act based on these assessments (Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg, 2020).

Conclusion

Research actors across the DACH region, including researchers, policymakers, publishers, funders, and research ethics committees, recognized the importance of research ethics and integrity in generating solutions to the COVID-19 pandemic. This scoping review reveals that the challenges faced by these actors are primarily linked to two pivotal factors: pressure on researchers to deliver timely, relevant, and consistent findings and the need to conduct risk–benefit analyses under novel circumstances. These factors not only burdened research actors but also pushed them to demonstrate adaptability. In making decisions related to research ethics and integrity, research actors adjusted their methods and assessed the risks and benefits of these adjustments on an ongoing basis. In addition, they fostered cooperation with other actors and strove to improve public awareness of scientific processes. Their ability to identify and address these challenges head-on may increase the resilience of ethical and high-quality research in the face of future crises.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to thank Professor Doris Schroeder for her comments on an earlier draft of the scoping review.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are no submission charges and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded by institutions through Knowledge Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors. For more information about Knowledge Unlatched please see here: . This research has been funded by the PREPARED project (HORIZON-WIDERA-2021-ERA-01-90) under grant agreement number 101058094.

Ethical approval

The authors declare that research ethics approval was not required for this study.

ORCID iD

Carly Seedall

Notes

References

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19–32.

Aromataris

Munn

(2020) JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.JBI. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL

Aven

(2008) Risk Analysis: Assessing Uncertainties Beyond Expected Values and Probabilities. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Bartmann

Erdmann

Haefker

, et al. (2022) Verstehendes Forschen in der Pandemie und anderen Ausnahmesituationen. Schörmann

Haefker

Erdmann

, (eds), Rekonstruktive Forschung in der Sozialen Arbeit (23). Rekonstruktive Forschung in der Sozialen Arbeit (23). Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.

Boytchev

(2020) How Germany retains one of the world’s strongest research reputations. Nature News, Nature Publishing Group. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03318-w (accessed 27 January 2023).

Breznau

(2020) Science by press conference: What the Heinsberg study on COVID-19 demonstrates about the dangers of fast, open science. Impact of Social Sciences, London School of Economics. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/08/20/science-by-press-conference-what-the-heinsberg-study-on-covid-19-demonstrates-about-the-dangers-of-fast-open-science/ (accessed 27 January 2023).

Breznau

Fischer

Havemann

, et al. (2020) Open Science, aber richtig! Was wir aus der Heinsberg-Studie lernen können. MetaArXiv. Available from: osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/54zx2.

Brodmerkel

(2021) Das Placebo-Problem der COVID-19-Impfstoff-Studien: Sollten jetzt alle Probanden vorrangig die echte Impfung erhalten? Medscape, Medscape. Available at: https://deutsch.medscape.com/artikelansicht/4909718 (accessed 10 August 2023).

Broer

Pröschel

(2021) Das Science Media Center Germany: ethnographische Einblicke in die Arbeitsweisen und Rollen eines Intermediärs zwischen Wissenschaft und Journalismus. Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Instituts, 57: 1–57.

10.

Bromme

(2022) Informiertes vertrauen in wissenschaft: Lehren aus der COVID-19 pandemie für das Verständnis Naturwissenschaftlicher Grundbildung (scientific literacy). Unterrichtswissenschaft 50(3): 331–345.

11.

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2022) Nutzen und Risiken der Corona-Schutzimpfung abwägen. Available at: https://www.zusammengegencorona.de/impfen/die-corona-schutzimpfungnutzen-und-risiken-richtig-abwaegen/ (accessed 27 January 2023).

12.

Buyx

(2022) Interview with Alena Buyx. Ethics go Viral. Available at: https://www.ethicsgoviral.com/interviews (accessed 10 August 2023).

13.

Chan

Ferguson

Savage

, et al. (2020) Is science able to perform under pressure? Insights from COVID-19. CREMA Working Paper (2020–7). Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/225549/1/2020-07.pdf (accessed 12 October 2023).

14.

Christian

(2022) Scheitern in der Medikamentenforschung: Zur Bedeutung von Forschungsskandalen für die Entwicklung von Selbstkorrekturmechanismen in der Wissenschaft. In: Schuol

Jungert

(eds) Scheitern in den Wissenschaften Perspektiven der wissenschaftsforschung. Paderborn: Brill, 209–236.

15.

Cottingham

DeAmaral

Gary

, et al. (2016) Bridging perspectives: Data protection, privacy, and security in the U.S. & Germany. Thesis, Texas A&M University.

16.

Der Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2020) Regierungserklärung von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel. Available at: https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/aktuelles/regierungserklaerung-von-bundeskanzlerin-merkel-1746554 (accessed 10 August 2023).

17.

Desson

Lambertz

Peters

, et al. (2020) Europe’s COVID-19 outliers: German, Austrian and Swiss policy responses during the early stages of the 2020 pandemic. Health Policy and Technology 9(4): 405–418.

18.

Deutsche Netzwerk Gesundheitskompetenz (2021) Forschung in Zeiten von COVID. Available at: https://dngk.de/webseminar-forschung-maerz-2021/ (accessed 14 February 2023).

19.

Dinkel

Berth

Borkenhagen

, et al. (2004) On raising the international dissemination of German Research. Experimental Psychology 51(4): 319–328.

20.

Dorschky

Schneider-Andrich

Horváth

(2021) Ethnografische Feldforschung in Zeiten der Pandemie—forschungsethische Implikationen am Beispiel des Projekts “Soziale Einbindung älterer Menschen in gemeinschaftlichen Wohnformen”, rep. Dresden: Evangelische Hochschule Dresden/Zentrum an der ehs Dresden gGmbH.

21.

Drobinski

(2021) Corona-app: “der Datenschutz darf nicht dem Virus zum Opfer fallen”. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Available at: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/corona-app-datenschutz-1.5196409 (accessed 27 January 2023).

22.

Eickemeier

(2021) Unabgeschlossene klinische Studien: COVID-19-Forschung in Deutschland blieb oft ergebnislos. Aktuelle News: Nachrichten aus Berlin und der Welt, Der Tagesspiegel. Available at: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/unabgeschlosseneklinische-studien-covid-19-forschung-in-deutschland-blieb-oft-ergebislos-261946.html (accessed 27 January 2023).

23.

Eshkerat

Danilov

, et al. (2022) Main trends in the development of the German newspaper market. International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences 8(22): 82–86.

24.

Evroux

(2022) Scientific integrity: Handling knowledge as a public good. European Parliamentary Research Service. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/739201/EPRS_BRI(2022)739201_EN.pdf (accessed 14 February 2023).

25.

Faust

Saksone

Weigold

Woydack

Strech

(2021a). Pandemien und Forschungsethik. Eine Übersicht zu zentralen Herausforderungen. In: Reis

Schmidhuber

Frewer

(eds) Pandemien und Ethik. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 163–178.

26.

Faust

Sierawska

Krüger

, et al. (2021b) Challenges and proposed solutions in making clinical research on COVID-19 ethical: A status quo analysis across German Research Ethics Committees. BMC Medical Ethics 22(1): 96.

27.

Fina

Gerten

Heider

, et al. (2022) Die neue Datenmü(n)digkeit? Pandemiedaten zwischen Politikberatung und Raumforschung, rep. Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwick-lungsforschung. Available at: https://www.ils-forschung.de/files_publikationen/pdfs/TRENDS-EXTRA_2.22_ONLINE.pdf (accessed 14 February 2023).

28.

Fiske

McLennan

Buyx

(2021) Ethical insights from the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: Considerations for building resilient healthcare systems in Europe. The Lancet Regional Health—Europe 9: 100213.

29.

Flemming

Noyes

(2021) Qualitative evidence synthesis: Where are we at? International Journal of Qualitative Methods 20: 160940692199327.

30.

Gamba

Nardone

Ricciardi

, et al. (2020) COVID-19: Eine sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektive, essay. Zurich and Geneva: Seismo.

31.

Gao

Yin

Myers

, et al. (2021) Potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic on scientists. Nature Communications 12(1): 6188.

32.

Gardner

(2021) International Student Visa applications down by 40%. University World News. Available at: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210408083258186 (accessed 27 January 2023).

33.

Gnutzmann

(2012) “This is the problem. To make it sound as if it had been written by a native speaker”: Academic writing in English as a Foreign Language, Technische Universität Braunschweig. Available at: https://www.wu.ac.at/fileadmin/wu/d/bizcomm/05_Symposien/Symposium_2012/5th_wu_syposium_investigating_gnutzmann_20121208.pdf (accessed 10 August 2023).

34.

Grant

Booth

(2009) A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26(2): 91–108.

35.

Hallam

(2020) Coronavirus: What is Germany’s Robert Koch Institute?—DW—05/13/2020. Deutsche Welle. Available at: https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-what-is-germanys-robert-koch-institute/a-53416437 (accessed 27 January 2023).

36.

Hasford

(2020) Corona-Impfstoffe—‘Placebo-Studien ethisch bald nicht mehr akzeptabel’. Deutschlandfunk. Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/corona-impfstoffeplacebo-studien-ethisch-bald-nicht-mehr-100.html (accessed 27 January 2023).

37.

Illetschko

(2020) Wie die Corona-Pandemie die Wissenschaften unter Druck Setzt. Der Standard. Available at: https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000117936185/wie-die-corona-pandemie-die-wissenschaften-unter-druck-setzt (accessed 27 January 2023).

38.

Jamrozik

Selgelid

M. J.

(2021) History of Human Challenge Studies. In: Human Challenge Studies in Endemic Settings. SpringerBriefs in Ethics. Springer, Cham, 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41480-1

39.

Jones

Mühlemann

Veith

, et al. (2020) An analysis of SARS-COV-2 viral load by patient age. medRxiv.

40.

Jünger

(2021) Forschen unter Pandemie-Bedingungen: Fokus qualitative Forschung. Department of Community Health HSG Bochum. Available at: https://dngk.de/wp-coent/uploads/2022/09/forschen-unter-pandemie-bedingungen.pdf (accessed 10 August 2023).

41.

Jungert

Schuol

(2022) Scheitern in den Wissenschaften. Perspektiven der Wissenschaftsforschung. Paderborn: Brill.

42.

Jungkunz

Köngeter

Spitz

, et al. (2022) Stellungnahme zur Etablierung der sekundären Forschungsnutzung von Behandlungsdaten in Deutschland: Ergebnisse des Verbundprojekts LinCDat: “Learning from Clinical Data. Ethical, Social and Legal Aspects”, rep. Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg.

43.

Klopper

Lubbe

Rugbeer

(2007) The matrix method of literature review. Alteration Journal 14(1): 262–276.

44.

Knobloch

Lohse

Franzke

(2023) Politikkoordinierung am Beispiel der Bund-Länder-Konferenzen und die Rolle der Politikberatung in der Pandemie. In: Workshop: Wissenschaft und Politik in der Pandemie—Lektionen der COVID-19 Krise; Logbuch (24–25 June 2022), essay, Volkswagen Stiftung, 11–18.

45.

Kohler

(2020) How not to cover science: Bild’s campaign against German virologist Christian Drosten. European Journalism Observatory. Available at: https://en.ejo.ch/ethics-quality/how-not-to-cover-science-bilds-campaign-against-german-virologist-chritiandrosten (accessed 17 August 2023).

46.

Lattner

Rupprecht

(2022) Kindheitspädagogik: Neue forschungsethische Anforderungen bei der Durchführung von Forschung in Kitas in Krisenzeiten. In: Klimczak P, Newiak D, and Petersen C (eds) Corona und die Anderen Wissenschaften: Interdisziplinäre Lehren aus der Pandemie, essay. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, 29–43.

47.

Ledford

(2021) The Covid pandemic’s lingering impact on clinical trials. Nature 595(7867): 341–342.

48.

Lesch

Richter

Semler

(2022) Daten teilen für die Forschung: Einstellungen und Perspektiven zur Datenspende in Deutschland. In: Richter

Loh

Buyx

, et al. (eds) Datenreiche Medizin und das Problem Der Einwilligung: Ethische, Rechtliche und Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, essay. Berlin: Springer, 211–226.

49.

Lobin

(2021) The European language question and the use of German in the EU. Goethe Institut. Available at: https://www.goethe.de/prj/ger/en/ihr/spk/22351694.html (accessed 10 August 2023).

50.

Mäder

(2022) Die Möglichkeiten des Scheiterns in der wissenschaftlichen Politikberatung: Ein Vorschlag für die Wissenschaftskommunikation. In: Schuol

Jungert

(eds) Scheitern in den Wissenschaften Perspektiven der Wissenschaftsforschung, essay. Paderborn: Brill, 165–187.

51.

Marx

(2022) Alena Buyx: ‘Die Wissenschaft hat uns gerettet’. Kleine Zeitung. Available at: https://www.kleinezeitung.at/lebensart/gesundheit/6231024/Alena-Buyx_Die-Wissenschaft-hat-uns-gerettet (accessed 27 January 2023).

52.

MDR with Hans Lilie (2021) Human-challenge-studie: ‘Das Risiko ist zu hoch’. MDR. Available at: https://www.mdr.de/wissen/human-challenge-studien-corona-infektion-absichtlich-100.html (accessed 27 January 2023).

53.

Miller

Valeva

Prieß-Buchheit

(2022) Ist wissenschaftliche Integrität geschlechtsneutral? In: Miller

Valeva

Prieß–Buchheit

(eds) Verlässliche Wissenschaft: Bedingungen, Analysen, Reflexionen, essay. Darmstadt: WBG Academic, 86–107.

54.

Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg (2020) #ScienceTalk: Wissenschaft und Politik in Corona-Zeiten. Available at: https://mwk.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/forschung/sciencetalk-die-rolle-der-wissenschaft/sciencetalk-wissenschaft-und-politik-in-corona-zeiten/ (accessed 10 August 2023).

55.

Mittermeier

(2021) #ichbinhanna: Und jetzt? De Gruyter Conversations. Available at: https://blog.degruyter.com/ichbinhanna-und-jetzt/ (accessed 18 January 2023).

56.

Munn

Peters

Stern

, et al. (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18(1): 1–7.

57.

Neumann

Rembold

(2021) Forschungsförderung in Zeiten von Corona. Laborjournal. Available at: https://www.laborjournal.de/blog/?p=11730#more-11730 (accessed 10 August 2023).

58.

Paez

(2017) Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 10(3): 233–240.

59.

Paul Ehrlich Institute (2022) Meldungen—chmp empfiehlt Standardzulassung für die COVID-19-Impfstoffe Comirnaty (BioNTech/Pfizer) und Spikevax (moderna). Available at: https://www.pei.de/DE/newsroom/hp-meldungen/2022/220916-chmp-standardzulassung-comirnaty-spikevax.html (accessed 27 January 2023).

60.

Pfizer (2021) Shot of a lifetime: How Pfizer and BioNTech developed and manufactured a COVID-19 vaccine in record time. Available at: https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/shot_of_a_lifetime_how_pfizer_and_biontech_developed_and_manufactured_a_covid_19_vaccine_in_record_time#:~:text=Over%20the%20next%20nine%20months,vaccine%20in%20the%201960s10 (accessed 10 August 2023).

61.

Pichler

(2022) Corona-Ringvorlesung: ‘Die Wissenschaften im Gesundheits-Lockdown’. Der Standard. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjK1pcnkeZo (accessed 13 February 2023).

62.

Reich

(2021) Human-Challenge-Studie zu COVID-19: Menschen anstecken, um Menschen zu heilen. Zeit Online. Available at: https://www.akek.de/wp-content/uploads/2021.08.31-Zeit-online.pdf (accessed 14 February 2023).

63.

Riccaboni

Verginer

(2022) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific research in the life sciences. PLoS One 17(2): e0263001.

64.

Rodrigues

Nimrichter

Cordero

(2016) The benefits of scientific mobility and international collaboration. FEMS Microbiology Letters 363(21): fnw247.

65.

Science Media Center Germany (2020) Qualität von Forschung und Publikationen zu COVID-19 – wie sichern wir sie? Available at: https://www.sciencemediacenter.de/alle-angebote/research-in-context/details/news/qualitaet-von-forschung-und-publikationen-zu-covid-19-wie-sichern/ (accessed 10 August 2023).

66.

Shah

Miller

Darton

, et al. (2020) Ethics of controlled human infection to address COVID-19. Science 368(6493): 832–834.

67.

Stern

Kleijnen

(2020) Language bias in systematic reviews: You only get out what you put in. JBI Evidence Synthesis 18(9): 1818–1819.

68.

Stöcker

(2020) COVID-19-debatte: Wissenschaft ist keine Wunschmaschine – Kolumne. Der Spiegel. Available at: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/coronavirus-wisenschaft-ist-keine-wunschmaschine-kolumne-a-425ad493-7649-49f7-93a2-c04fcc22ef8a (accessed 27 January 2023).

69.

Strech

(2023) Interview with Daniel Strech. Other.

70.

Strobl

Roth

(2021) Internationale wissenschaftliche Publikationsaktivität zu COVID-19. Der Pathologe 42(2): 224–230.

71.

Taschwer

(2022) Wie COVID-19 die Wissenschaft umkrempelte. Der Standard. Available at: https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000135273190/wie-covid-19-die-wissenschaftschockierte (accessed 27 January 2023).

72.

Varwig

(2020) Eine Chance für die Wissenschaft. Robert Bosch Stiftung. Available at: https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/de/story/eine-chance-fuer-die-wissenschaft (accessed 27 January 2023).

73.

Voit

Skuban-Eiseler

Orzechowski

, et al. (2023) Informed consent in COVID-19-Research: An ethical analysis of clinical studies performed during the pandemic. Healthcare 11(12): 1793–1803.

74.

Williams

Moser

(2019) The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review 15(1): 45–55.

75.

Wissenschaft im Dialog (2022) Science Barometer 2022. Available at: https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/en/our-projects/science-barometer/science-barometer-2022/ (accessed 5 September 2023).

Research ethics and integrity in the DACH region during the COVID-19 pandemic: balancing risks and benefits under pressure

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Core factors

Research under pressure

Changing research environments

Lack of diversity in research

Publication and dissemination trends

Low scientific literacy and trust in science

Recruitment

Risk–benefit analyses

Research redundancy and study termination

Placebos and human challenge studies in COVID-19 vaccine trials

Data management

Informed consent

Best practices

Ongoing risk–benefit analysis

Cooperation

Public scientific literacy

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interest

Funding

Ethical approval

ORCID iD

Notes

References