This was one of the first major research-based tasks of the year, and while challenging I learned a lot about the components of the lab report and how to effectively compare two complex studies!
Introduction:
The future development of medical treatment brings a multi-layered discussion on what boundaries there are in what we can test, necessitating that a subject’s human rights are not infringed upon for the sake of the experiment. From genome mapping to new treatments of diseases, a discussion has always followed about whether it is ethical for the human race to venture into biomedical science that in theory would alter our sense of self or even our humanity. These questions are the subject of ethical review boards internationally, part of the larger field called biomedical ethics. Their main purpose is to review and monitor new and ongoing research projects, assuring that the inalienable rights of the patients being tested are followed, leading them to their second purpose of assessing whether the research being conducted follows the rights assured by the patient. This paper will explore how two lab reports explored the concept of ethical review boards, developing their argument through the effective creation of proper lab reports and their respective components. Both journals maintain the core elements of the lab report but alter it in ways that arguably help achieve their purpose, further illuminating the reader into different avenues that encompass the world of biomedical ethics.
Lab Report Components:
The first thing that catches the reader’s eye is the title section, both reports provide concise, yet informative titles that let the reader know automatically what their papers will entail. Personally, when searching for reports to use the titles were enough to deduce that the covered material was good for my assignment.
Following the guidelines of Technical Communication, the abstract serves to provide a comprehensive review of what the journal will entail. Biomedical Ethics and Human Rights used their abstract to implement a broader take on what the field should cover, providing a larger definition for the field before dividing it into further subsections. Explaining these broader concepts near the beginning of the abstract mirrors the format of the paper itself, as the introduction would be the section to further flesh out the concepts required for full comprehension of the paper. Following this, the abstract shifts to the Ukrainian perspective as mentioned earlier, calling for the adoption of a special law “‘On the Protection of Patients’ Rights’, which determines the…foundations for the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of patients, including biomedical ones” (Kalyuzhny et al, 2020) Through this, the authors can convey the main agenda in the paper, which is then followed by why they believe the law is important for the development of Ukrainian healthcare. Thus, this abstract fulfills the requirements of containing “enough information so that your readers can quickly decide whether to locate and read the whole report.” (Markel; Selber, 2020) It provides enough context for what the paper will be about, while also incorporating a thorough line of reasoning to illuminate where the paper will go.
Similarly, Challenges for ethical committees achieves the same purpose, but on a smaller scale. Their approach more directly follows the guidelines listed in Technical Communication, leaving no extra text for background beyond the scope of the paper. The first sentence of the abstract reads: “In this paper, the evolution of the ethics committees for health research, their history, membership, and function in China and Australia is described.” (Huanhuan et al, 2021) As illustrated, the authors take no time in explicitly stating what the paper will cover, which is then followed by how the researchers came to their conclusions through reviewing ethical boards, the results found, and the conclusions of the researchers themselves in their comparison of Australia and China. Through doing so, they follow the second guideline of Technical Communication, mirroring the structure of the paper in the abstract. (Markel; Selber, 2020 ) The difference in directness should not be critiqued between the two papers, however, as Kalyuzhny et al tackle a larger conceptual argument about biomedical ethics as a whole, while Huanhuan et al’s work focuses more on the literal operation of these ethical committees using the concepts as a backdrop for their argument.
The introduction to Biomedical Ethics and Human Rights starts by stating how the research can be implemented at a local level for the development of Ukraine, but internationally for the contribution to biomedical ethics standards. The researchers argue that the issue of “biomedical ethics and human rights is relevant given the international and regional trends, as well as the European integration obligations of Ukraine.” (Kalyuzhny et al, 2020) The authors then spend the next following paragraphs explaining how for Ukraine to assimilate into the European Union it must uphold the same ethical standards, and how the “implementation of medical reform” (p. 97) is crucial for the population to be satisfied. Then, the introduction shifts to a broader scope, outlining that “Widespread use of biotechnology in the medical sector can lead to a violation of human rights.” (p. 97) By walking the reader through the multiple levels of the ways their research can be used and is important, it fulfills the outlined goal of explaining why this specific research is needed, and providing them with the necessary “theoretical background.” (Markel; Selber, 2020)
Huanhuan et al continue their direct approach, emphasizing that this paper provides numerous “social benefits” (Huanhuan et al, 2021) in the context of their paper. It is argued that “With increasing international collaborative research, it is important to analyze the differences in the ethics review in different countries.” (p. 2) Following why it is important on a larger scale, the authors explain the choice of comparing China and Australia, as comparing nations with “vastly different cultures and political structures” is a great reference point for comparing the development of ethical committees. (p. 2) Both papers follow the criteria for a proper introduction, outlining why their research is important, but not going too far into how the research was acquired which could also be necessary as stated by Technical Communication.
Interestingly, Challenges for ethical committees leaves out a final hypothesis statement while Biomedical Ethics and Human Rights incorporates one as a final paragraph. This is indicative of the different natures of the two papers, as Kalyuzhny et al’s goal are more to persuade the reader of why further ethical considerations are important, while Huanhuan et al’s goal are to synthesize information to create an objective conclusion in the comparison between the two nations.
Considering the nature of these papers, the materials and methods center not much on the hard data collected, but more so on the literature reviewed for each journal to come to the conclusions that they have. Kaluzhny et al list all the legal and scientific sources used for their argument, from the World Health Organization to the Ministry of Health. The section concludes by stating that the work “uses general-scientific, philosophical and special-scientific methods.” (Kalyuzhny et al, 2020) Thus, the researchers attempt to develop trust with the reader by emphasizing how proper scientific methods were followed to ensure that their conclusions were respectable in integrity. Similarly, Huanhuan et al display to the reader that the researchers came from their respective countries so “the comparisons would be made based on the published evidence rather than personal opinions.” (Huanhuan et al, 2021) Through this, the researchers are trying to convince the reader that their claims in the paper are objective to represent the data as best as they can, so the reader will have confidence in their conclusions.
The results section is where the two papers diverge, as Biomedical Ethics and Human Rights flesh out a complete section talking about their findings for bioethics as a whole and what it should entail, while Challenges for ethical committees decides to divide it into different subsections regarding the ethical committees of the two different nations. The method by which Kalyuzhny et al display their results mirrors the line of reasoning outlined in their abstract and introduction, beginning by weaving their sources to present claims about the nature of biomedical ethics and its goals.
Essential facts of the results include the dissemination of bioethics to the responsibilities of medical professionals, as the researchers argue that “Biomedical ethics is recognized in almost all countries by science that is designed to solve the ethical dilemmas of preserving the health and well-being of man, humanity and the environment” (Kalyuzhny et al, 2020) Further illustrating how the researchers present the information in a way that directly supports “the claims that will be made in the discussion.” (Markel; Selber, 2020) We can assume what will be talked about in the discussion through the arguments made in the previous sections, and the choice to outline what is internationally deemed as a proper ethical system for healthcare and biomedical advancements sets the authors up for the future connection for how to advance international and Ukrainian healthcare.
In contrast, Huanhuan et al format the results section as a contextual walkthrough for ethical committees internationally, and how the nations of Australia and China have done it specifically. They start by explaining how the “Nuremberg Code established the principles for human experimentation, including the requirement for voluntary informed consent.” (Huanhuan et al, 2021) Then follow multiple subsections including the historical developments for each nation’s committees, the national to local organizations that conduct the line of work, who is allowed to become members of such committees, their purposes, and challenges overall. While it does not seem similar to the results section found in Kalyuzhny et al’s work, it serves the same purpose of incorporating sources to present their respective argument, Huanhuan et al’s purpose are to disseminate information to create a comprehensive overview of their findings, even implementing a compare and contrast table. One example is the comparison of “Governance: Vertical from national to the provincial government (China) against State-based with national guidelines (Australia).” After this comparison, the results shift to challenges that Chinese, Australian, and international ethical committees face in the hands of poor funding which can get into the hands of objectivity, and fear over data protection with the rise of social media. Through this, they can present their findings in a way that reflects the goals of the stated purpose from previous sections, something important when speaking about the next section.
As assumed before, Kalyuzhny et al directly incorporate the findings that outline what is a proper ethical review for their discussion, to their conclusions for how an ethical system in the modern perspective should be. Opinions like “We can agree with the definition of I. Senyuta of human right for health as a social (natural) phenomenon” (Kalyuzhny et al, 2020) These pre-ordained bases of the structure allow the researchers to provide a concrete claim for how the Ukrainian and international health care system should be, in the context of advancing biomedical technologies and the requirements for Ukraine to uphold fundamental human rights. In contrast, Huanhuan et al.’s paper is missing a discussion. In the context of their paper, however, the purpose of representing data objectively as possible, their claims are found in the way the content is represented. The results section can be seen as the discussion, as their using the sources collected to present information can be deemed analysis.
Considering the broader scope of the paper, Kalyuzhny et al explicitly follow the guideline of a traditional lab report, “reviewing the purpose of the lab report and summarizing the most important implications of [their] findings.” (Markel; Selber, 2020) The first few paragraphs are direct restatements of previous ideas from the introduction and abstract to refresh the reader and finish with broader arguments of the paper with the final statement “Fundamental human rights should remain the basis for addressing the existing ethical and legal issues in the field of biomedicine.” (Kalyuzhny et al, 2020) Thus, the researchers present a concise paper overview, leaving the readers with the core ideas to take out of it. Huanhuan et al take a similar approach, stating conclusions made through the comparison: “Both countries face similar challenges; they, however, have often addressed them in different ways, reflecting the cultural values, norms, and legal environments of the countries.” (Huanhuan et al, 2021)
Huanhuan et al decide to include an acknowledgment section for all the participants who made the study possible, while Kalyuzhny et al did not. This could be due to the research subject matter, as Huanhuan et al had to incorporate research subjects into their testing, while Kalyuzhny et al had primarily past literature on the subject. Both papers have thorough reference sections that outline all pieces of information that helped culminate their paper.
Conclusion:
Analyzing these research journals both for their content and their structure helped me develop an appreciation for the nature of research journals. Developing a defensible argument, especially in the field of research is the building of blocks upon each other to create a well-thought-out presentation of ideas. In conjunction, I’ve learned much about the international attachments nations have through research, and the ethical obligations all in biomedical research have.
Works Cited:
Cao Huanhuan, Ming Li, Mingxu Wang, Roder, D., & Olver, I. (2021). Challenges for ethics committees in biomedical research governance: Illustrations from China and Australia. Journal of Medical Ethics & History of Medicine, 14(25), 1–14. Accessed October 1, 2022
Kalyuzhny, R., Makeieva, O., & Shapenko, L. (2020). Biomedical Ethics and Human Rights in The Context of Innovation and Information Development of Society. Journal of History, Culture & Art Research / Tarih Kültür ve Sanat Arastirmalari Dergisi, 9(1), 96–106. Accessed October 1, 2022 https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v9i1.2537
Purdue Writing Lab. (n.d.). In-text citations: The basics // Purdue writing lab. Purdue Writing Lab. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
