 Today we are concerned in talking about how we can apply research ethics into different social settings effectively and efficiently. Consideration in the research ethics include different things and it may include principal investigator relationship with staff. This is very important to understand that what kind of the relationship is being established between the principal investigator and with the rest of the participants and team member. It is very important to see whether this relationship is a relationship of dominance or not. Either this relationship is on equal basis or there is no superiority in it. There is no aspect in it in which we see that the juniors are being treated in a very submissive way and they may not be able to depict their feelings in the process of research or express their opinion in the way that they are being treated with subjects. So the overall situation and the relationship between all the parties who are engaged in that experiment or in a social situation is very important to be carefully looked into. A responsible investigator should do multiple things and it may include obtain team management skills. When we talk about team management skills, it means that each member of a team is equally working like a team member. In fact, they are not working in such a way that they are only working on the importance of a subordinate. So team building, a team work and interaction on a positive note is very important rather than an overall scenario. I feel that if a principal investigator researches on a specific topic, then all the team members are only working to prove their hypothesis. This is something which should not be reflected by the overall teamwork. In fact, teamwork should be done in such a way that all the members are paying attention and contributing so that their eventual purpose is to produce a good research. Regardless of the fear that whatever the results would be, our purpose should not be that the team should work in such a way that they only prove their hypothesis. In fact, we should be ready to see all its sub aspects whether they are positive or negative. Then encourage questions from colleagues and staff. For instance, if the principal investigator has designed it in a way which has some loops, so there is a chance that some junior colleague may question that this setup could not be an efficient and effective setup. And we have alternatives which we can try. Like we do social experiments. In this, we have to take care of the safety and risk factors of the participants. We try those situations in different alternatives. We look at their pros and cons. If we are looking at a passerby behavior, then in a dangerous situation, if we have set up a state or are playing a role, then how can the safety hazards be there? There is a chance that there could be some kind of happening in which the participants of our research can not ensure their safety. There could be some kind of traffic issue, noise issue, there could be some personal safety issue. So, to question and cross-check all these things, to debate about team members, and to happily and positively receive the principal investigator's support, and to incorporate in our research is a good principal investigator's trait. Then listen to the concerns of research staff, as they may be the first to point out problems with the protocol and with the compliance. Whatever the research design is, there may be certain issues related to implementation of the design and its protocol and its compliance, where there may be some issues, they should be discussed as well. And if they report by chance or by virtue of chance or by incidence that this complaint can be reached, then all those factors should be heard effectively and to implement it is also the work of the principal investigator. Wail consensus with the research team. If we have to do multiple alternatives to do one single task, then discussing there and building a consensus that if we are looking at a specific behavior and looking at a social situation, then what can be the alternatives of that social situation? Let's say if we are talking about shame attacking exercises, then shame attacking exercises can be in different scenarios, in different settings. For that, take the RDAs and then decide which RDA is the best for us. The best point of view of research ethics is to implement it for the principal investigator. It is an important task. Eliminate intimidation by those in supervised position. If you have a scary environment, if you have a scenario in which you don't have to build a rapport to talk to each other, if you can't share your feelings, your ideas, then there will never be a positive environment and research will be in a very close environment and your supervisors will never be able to share their feelings with the supervisor. So ensuring that there is no intimidation or an open and fear communication is an important trait of the principal investigator and it is an important task. Authority relationships are not limited to the principal investigator and the staff but they can also include authority of a sponsor over a principal investigator. Sponsorships are very important in research. At times different companies are sponsoring research, they are sponsoring a product. Let's say it could be a breast formula, milk formula and a company has sponsored it and we have made a social setup and we are doing research on it. There is a lot of involvement of the sponsor that basically it is more of a enhancement of the product rather than the research that is involved in it. So it is very important to see what the researcher's stakes are and what the sponsor's stakes are. Just to give the benefit to the sponsor, we just can't negotiate the basic principles of our research and we can't negotiate them. They will stand still where they are the basic principles we have to follow them at any cost. Then authority of a principal investigator over participants. Similarly you can't force the participants to ask this question. Or in this social setting if you are given an indicator then you will behave in this specific way. They should be free to practice yourself and you can't dictate anyone there. Then authority of a protocol over the principal investigator. Similarly if there are specific protocols included, if we have kept any protocol in some research then only because of those protocols principal investigator can't twist their major findings and can't change their process. But they are binded by the research ethics practice that they have to fulfill all those research ethics questions effectively because we don't compromise on it. Then another kind of situation is investigator and subject relationship. The investigator must place the participants right, welfare and safety above all other personal and scientific concerns. Maybe there could be some challenging assignment which we feel we can make a very scientific conclusion. But that specific situation is not favorable for a participant to do. So there you need to think choice that either we are going to do that experiment just for having some scientific results or not. In previous slides we have been talking about traditional research ethic violations. We have seen that there are very big scientific discoveries and many behaviors of human participants which were very challenging but there were more violations of research ethics. The relationship between researcher and participant is similar to physician and patient relationship but different in different ways. Like the way in which a doctor or patient's relationship can't be added in treatment which I am giving to this subject but it is very beneficial for scientific discovery. Similarly we can't follow this practice in research. Inform consent is required in the research. This is something we have talked about number of times. Withdrawal from the research is on the discretion of the participant. This is also something which we have talked about number of times. Then investigator should be sensitive to power relationships. By showing our power we can't take any analysis, performance or any verbatim and the last is that the investigator has a relationship with the participants. They should be as such no mistrust and no deceiving thing which should be included in research. If you are committing one thing that should actually be the thing but not something else.