AS researchers of the observable universe, scientists often have a major impact on society through their work. They drive progress by conducting research to explain events, patterns and phenomena happening in the world.

At times, scientific research and discoveries can alter or even overturn preconceived notions about a particular subject. In this way, scientists are often perceived as commanding special power and authority.

Consequently, they have a special responsibility to consider the implications and consequences of their work. Especially when human subjects are concerned, scientists have a duty to be socially and ethically responsible in designing their research. A flawed or biased study design can lead to skewed interpretations. Subsequently, results that are misleading can create a harmful, negative social impact.

Recently, an academic paper was published by a group of researchers mainly from Universiti Malaya, and widely circulated at around the time of a heated debate on the “foreign cooks ban” issue in Malaysia. The policy was announced by Human Resources Minister M. Kula Segaran on June 23, emulating a ban implemented in Penang in 2016.

The paper, titled “Microorganisms as an indicator of hygiene status among migrant food handlers in Peninsular Malaysia”, was widely shared by supporters of the ban as evidence to justify the rationale of the new government ruling.

On the same day, The Star published an interview with lead researcher Associate Professor Dr Siti Nursheena Mohd Zain, and the first line of the article read: “Almost all foreign workers tested in a study were found to be carrying microbes that could cause food poisoning and even death, and a small percentage of them harboured antibiotics-resistant bacteria, said researchers.”

Even if it was unintended, many felt that the researchers had played into discrimination by casting doubt on the hygiene standards of “almost all” foreign workers in the food and beverage industry. A majority of migrant-supporting organisations I spoke to were understandably furious at the paper. Even after a public backlash, the researchers staunchly defended their position.

After reading the paper, I believe that the main problem lies with the way the study was designed. Significantly, the researchers had not included control groups to offer parallel analysis and possible alternative explanations to the experimental results, such as local food handlers, migrant workers in the non-F&B industry, and/or restaurant patrons. Neither did they include a negative control group (a group in which no response is expected), such as food handlers who had just performed proper sanitisation steps.

Why are control groups so important in this case? First and foremost, from a social context, singling out foreign food handlers as having “bad hygiene” is both unfair and unethical.

It is also questionable to compare the workers based on their country of origin, as the study had done. Given the large standard deviation for each group’s result, it is unfair to assume that individuals of any particular nationality are more “unhygienic” than others, since within each group, there is already a big variation in individual personal hygiene.

In other words, some cleaner individuals would be discriminated against along with their countrymen, simply because the study highlighted the effect of country of origin.

On July 14, Penang health committee chairman Dr Afif Bahardin issued a statement, confirming that a majority of foreigners in the state had fulfilled the typhoid vaccination requirement, while most local employees had not.

Section 34(g) of the Food Act 1983 and Regulation 31 of the Food Hygiene Regulation 2009 stipulate that all food handlers must undergo a medical examination to ensure they are free from food-borne diseases, and Dr Afif’s statement highlighted the researchers’ missed opportunity by excluding local food handlers as a control group.

Interestingly, despite its questionable study design, the controversial research paper was, in fact, funded by several government and university research grants, and had received full ethical approval. In this light, it is pertinent that we talk about research ethics and social responsibility.

The following are four golden rules of research ethics that any responsible researcher should apply to his or her work:

i) respect for persons: obtain informed consent and voluntary goodwill/trust from subjects before performing the research;

ii) beneficence: ensure the study design is robust and beneficial to the subjects;

iii) non-maleficence: there should not be any intent to harm, either physically or mentally, the subjects; and,

iv) justice: the findings should be seen as just/fair to the subjects, and not biased due to participant selection.

In this case, the researchers should have considered how the results of their study would be interpreted, in light of the sensitive (or some say, xenophobic) sentiment against foreign workers in Malaysia.

While there may not have been the intent to cause harm, the study’s highly publicised findings have subjected foreign workers to public prejudice, and in extreme cases, even hatred. Such sentiments are highly damaging, especially when these workers still have to carry out their duties day in, day out for a living.

On top of this, the combined threat of impending stricter health regulations and more frequent spot checks by the authorities has created a cloud of fear looming over the foreign worker community. These are the social consequences of poorly designed research.

It is high time that the Malaysian Medical Research and Ethics Committee (MREC) look into issues regarding scientific research ethics. The controversial migrant workers’ hygiene standards paper is a good example, highlighting the shortcomings in the ethical evaluation of scientific studies.

Perhaps, MREC should consider displaying all research study proposals (including those that have been approved) on an online domain for public scrutiny. This way, the public will be able to give feedback and objections, and suggest amendments, even after a formal evaluation has been carried out and approval given. – July 31, 2018.

* Lim Chee Han is a founding member of Agora Society and a policy researcher. He holds a PhD in infection biology from Hannover Medical School, Germany, and an MSc in immunology and BSc in biotechnology from Imperial College London. Health and socioeconomic policies are his concerns. He believes a nation can advance significantly if policymaking and research are taken seriously.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.