Ethics in action

Choose your

PATH

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam quis vulputate sapien, quis vulputate. Cras convallis ornare malesuada.

start

COMPLETE THE CHALLENGE!

Choose the correct way and get to the lock. The password is the answer to the last question. There is only one possible way. Good luck!

More data needed

Start here

Trial starts

Click to read

Click to read

Click to read

Side effects reported

Investigation open

Supplement approved

Click to read

Click to read

Click to read

Lorem ipsum

Lorem ipsum

Donec magna leo, auctor non rutrum luctus

Donec magna leo, auctor non rutrum luctus

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Lorem ipsum dolor?

Enter the password

The password is "1234"

Developing a new supplement

You’re a researcher working with a sports team to develop a new supplement that could help athletes recover faster from injuries. However, the supplement has only been tested on animals and is not yet approved for human use. The team wants to start using it with athletes as a “trial run” to see if it’s effective. Which path do you take? Option A: Agree to conduct a small trial on volunteer athletes. Option B: Refuse until there is more data from human trials.

Informal trial

You decide to run a small, informal trial with the athletes. The results seem positive, but some athletes report mild side effects. The sports team encourages you to ignore these side effects, as they are minor, and focus on the benefits of faster recovery. Which option do you choose? Option A: Report the side effects and document them fully, even if it delays further use of the supplement. Option B: Minimize the reporting of side effects, considering them “non-significant.

More data needed

You insist on waiting for more human data. The team decides to look for another researcher who will move faster. You hear that this new researcher may not fully inform the athletes about the supplement’s risks. You can choose to report this or ignore it. Which path do you choose? Option A: Report the new researcher’s actions to the ethics committee. Option B: Decide it’s not your responsibility and focus on your own research.

Side effects reported

You report the side effects, and as a result, the ethics committee suspends the supplement trials temporarily. The sports team is upset, and the athletes are disappointed because they believe it was helping them. Now, the team is pressuring you to start up again, saying the risks are exaggerated. What do you do? Option A: Stand your ground and advocate for thorough testing, even if it risks your position with the team. Option B: Agree to start trials again with stricter monitoring, hoping to balance safety and performance.

Approved for use

You downplay the side effects and the supplement is approved for regular use with the team. After some time, one athlete develops severe health issues possibly linked to the supplement. The family considers legal action, and you realize you may be held accountable. What do you do? Option A: Disclose the early reports of side effects to show you had concerns from the start. Option B: Attempt to defend your initial reports, arguing that the benefits outweighed the minor side effects.

Investigation opened

You report the new researcher to the ethics committee, who opens an investigation. The athletes are informed of the risks and choose to stop using the supplement until further data is available. The sports team and researcher are angry with you. What do you do? Option A: Explain to the team that you’re following ethical guidelines to protect the athletes. Option B: Decide to let it go, hoping the investigation wraps up quickly without damaging your reputation.