The research history of community pharmacists in Japan is short, and ethical responses may not be mature. Therefore, the Japan Pharmaceutical Association and universities are working on research ethics education to help pharmacists make appropriate ethical responses. In this study, we evaluated whether an educational program using participatory learning was effective in research ethics education for pharmacists. Regarding the educational effects of our workshop, the score for motivation to learn about research ethics was high, and that for judgment and applied skills related to research ethics was low. Overall, participants’ assessment of the program contents was extremely favorable, indicating their satisfaction. Participatory learning was widely accepted and suggested to be effective in improving learning motivation. Additionally, to be able to apply the knowledge of research ethics to own research, it was considered necessary to continue learning through participatory learning. This will help pharmacists gain judgment and applied skills related to research ethics.

In recent years, the importance of building evidence in clinical practice that is increasingly acknowledged globally has been recognized in Japan as well, and it is expected that clinical research by community pharmacists will grow. In Japan, however, community pharmacists have few opportunities to learn about research ethics and may lack the training to make ethical decisions. We conducted a questionnaire survey of community pharmacists (n = 200) using a free descriptive format to understand how they perceived research ethics. Our qualitative analysis of 170 respondents revealed various perspectives (<A pharmacist’s grounding>, <How pharmacists perceive research>, and <Ethical issues entailed by research>) of Japanese pharmacists on ethics in the context of clinical research. With respect to how to understand research, the following perspectives were found: “research that prioritizes researchers,” “research that prioritizes research subjects (patients),” and “research that enters into regular work.” The perspectives on “research that prioritizes research subjects (patients)” and “research that enters into regular work” may inadvertently lead to ethically inappropriate research due to mismatch in professional values or poor understanding of research. These findings can contribute to the development of an educational program for community pharmacists on research ethics.