Ethics & Communication ResearchEthics & Communication ResearchEthics & Communication ResearchEthics & Communication Research

Neuman & Robson Chapter 3

Reminder: Labs today in Library

• Lab in Bennett Library computer lab room 4009

• Guest instructor: Sylvia Roberts

New Ethical GuidelinesNew Ethical Guidelines

• History: idea of human subject protection relatively new

• Medical & Psychological Experiments • Examples Questionable Ethics in research

– experiment• Milgrim obedience study

– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment• Zimbardo –Stanford prison experiment

– www.prisonexp.org– Another Zimbardo link

• Tuskegee syphilis study– www.hsc.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/apology/report.html

Web SitesWeb Sites• Tri-council guidelines for ethical

treatment of human subjects (Canada)– Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of

Canada (SSHRC) SSHRC homepage

• Office of Research Ethics at SFU• Reading List for aboriginal research

ethics–http://www.ecdip.org/ethics/readings.htm

Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)• Personal• Researcher’s scholarly values• Guides to Best Practices,

– codes of ethics --professional associations

– Legislation– Requirements of

Funding Agencies• But even with good

intentions researchers can make mistakes– Stanford Prison

experiment, an ethical controversy

– http://www.prisonexp.org

Stanford Prison Experiment “debriefing”: One of the most abused prisoners, #416, and the guard known as "John Wayne", who was one of the most abusive guards, confront each other in an "encounter session" two months later.

Motivations for unethical research

–Career pressure– Ego (“knowing the right answer”)–Political agendas (ex. P. Rushton on race)– cheaper, faster, career advancement,

prestige, etc.– Ignorance etc…

Ethical Issues: stakeholdersEthical Issues: stakeholders

• scientific community• “the subject”• individual researcher• society/the public• sponsors/funding sources• legal authorities/government

Scientific MisconductScientific Misconduct• research fraud

– falsification or distortion of data or methods– fabrication

• Plagiarism such as– presenting the ideas or words of another as one's

own – Failure to give credit (citation plagiarism)– SFU tutorial on plagiarism

http://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/tutorials/plagiarism-tutorial

• Violation of ethical standards – ex. Failure to ask for informed consent, conducting research

on underage children or special populations without proper consent…(etc.)

• Falsifying data & Suppression of findings (non-publication of important findings)

Web Sites: Research Ethics Web Sites: Research Ethics Guidelines in Canada & at SFUGuidelines in Canada & at SFU

• Tri-council guidelines for ethical treatment of human subjects (Canada)– Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of

Canada (SSHRC) SSHRC homepage

• Office of Research Ethics at SFU

Informed Consent StatementsInformed Consent Statements(some points to cover)(some points to cover)

• purpose & procedure of study• Potential risks and discomfort• Provisions for anonymity and confidentiality• researcher’s address and source of information• statement of voluntary nature of participation and

ability to withdraw at any time• alternative procedures• Provisions for compensation (or not)• offer to provide summary of findings• Sample form from SFU (Office of Research Ethics)

Examples of Scientific Misconduct: Fabricating or “Fudging” Data

• Canadian Example:– Dr. R. Chandra (Memorial University)

• Seniors’ memory and multivitamins• Infant allergies & baby formulas

– No evidence of health benefits, no data-- BUT Chandra held the patent on the multivitamins

• Other examples:– http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/precollege/sc

ienceclass/sectone/chapt4/cs1.aspx– http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/precollege/sc

ienceclass/sectone/chapt4/cs2.aspx

Deception & InjusticeTuskegee syphilis study

• “Depression-era U.S. poster advocating early syphilis treatment. Although treatments were available, participants in the study did not receive them.”

• http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/9716.aspx#overview

• Response: Belmont Report: respect for persons, beneficence and justice

• Deception (lies), withholding treatment, racism?

• Another website on the history of the study– http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/

Projects2000/Ethics/TUSKEGEESYPHILISSTUDY.html

Other forms of scientific misconduct

• Failure to share credit– R. Franklin and discovery of DNA

• suppression of unpopular research projects & misuse of incomplete findings – XYY controversy—genetic screening of newborns

• Suppression of findings– “Love Canal”—keeping knowledge of toxic waste

site secret & putting publics in danger to protect corporations

BothMoral and

Legal

IllegalOnly

ImmoralOnly

BothImmoral

and Illegal

EthicalIll

egal

Legal

Unethical Source: figure adapted fromNeuman (2000:91)

Ethics & LegalityEthics & LegalityTypology of Legal and Moral Typology of Legal and Moral

Actions in ResearchActions in Research

Ethical TreatmentEthical Treatment of Research Subjects of Research Subjects

Types of HarmTypes of Harm• physical harm• psychological abuse, stress, loss of self-

esteem• legal harm• other possible forms of harm – financial, G.P.A. , etc.– creation of inequities– denial of treatment– placebos in experimental research

Milgrim obedience study• “Illustration of the setup of

a Milgram experiment. The experimenter (E) convinces the subject ("Teacher" T) to give what he believes are painful electric shocks to another subject, who is actually an actor ("Learner" L). Many subjects continued to give shocks despite pleas of mercy from the actors.”

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milgram_Experiment_v2.png

Zimbardo –Stanford prison experiment

Stanford Prison Experiment “debriefing”: One of the most abused prisoners, #416, and the guard known as "John Wayne", who was one of the most abusive guards, confront each other in an "encounter session" two months later.

• www.prisonexp.org• Another Zimbardo link• Film clips from Quiet

Rage

Newer Approaches Raise

More Nuanced Concerns

• Cultural Taboos & rights – sharing secret or sacred

knowledge– Owning one’s stories

• Institutional Constraints vs. Subject’s wishes – What if subject WANTS to

be identified?• Practical Complexities &

Political or Moral Commitments – Counting Refugees

Pansy Napangardi painting a Dreaming

Other Examples: Portrayals of Victims, Photography of Street Life & things

• Tip Sheet on how to portray famine victims with dignity (Reuters)– http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/

reliefresources/112669600053.html

• Photography of Street Life in Canada– The Duclos Affair & Quebec law

• http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

• Photographing architecture or public art (national variations in intellectual property rights) Fatou Ousseini lies with her

malnourished one-year-old son Alassa Galisou at an emergency feeding clinic in the town of Tahoua in northwestern Niger (Reuters_

Deception andDeception and covert observation covert observation

• formerly common practices• e.g. Laud Humphrey Tearoom Trade

– http://web.missouri.edu/~philwb/Laud.html

• Problems:–Defies Principle of voluntary INFORMED

consent–Potential for harm to subjects

Who can give consent?Who can give consent?

• Participation must be voluntary; not coerced• Not applicable to special populations

– e.g. military personnel, students, prison inmates, mentally challenged– not capable of giving true voluntary informed consent because:

• can’t make the decision (mental incapacity, immaturity)• not truly “free” (could be directly or indirectly coerced, or cannot

refuse)– for example, the military and total institutions, like prisons

• But how much information is given for ‘informed consent’ varies by type of method– Ex. often experimental research requires deception

• Potential benefits of research must outweigh risks

Privacy, Anonymity, ConfidentialityPrivacy, Anonymity, Confidentiality

• privacy: a legal right (note : public vs. private domain)--even if subject is dead

• anonymity: subjects remain nameless & responses cannot be connected to them (problem in small samples)

• confidentiality: subjects’ identity may be known but not disclosed by researcher, identity can’t be linked to responses

Ethics & Ethics & the Scientific Community:the Scientific Community:

Codes of EthicsCodes of Ethics• guide, control & regulate members• protect researchers from outside

pressures• protect others from irresponsible

practitioners

Ethical Issues Ethical Issues related to Research Sponsorsrelated to Research Sponsors

• balancing allegiances• “cooking” results unintentionally (the Lake

Wobegon Effect)• biases from limits on conditions &

resources• suppressing findings• concealing the sponsor

How Society & GovernmentHow Society & Government Shape Research Shape Research

• legislation• “politically correct” or “safe” topics• control of access to data (gatekeepers)• biases in government statistics• issues:– censorship, public opinion– national security– public good– funding priorities of government granting agencies

Ethical Debates about Ethical Debates about Research FindingsResearch Findings

• “models of relevance”– no net effects, positive & negative effects,

special constituencies• control over use of findings• control of raw data– especially subject information

• academic freedom– autonomy of research

Legal Requirements & Ethical Research?

• Should researchers always respect confidentiality?

• But laws require reporting of information about plans to commit illegal acts (example: assisted suicide)

• Russel Odgen Controversy (typo in textbook)– Link to SFU decision: • http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/ogden.htm

Ethics and Basic IdeasEthics and Basic Ideas about Science about Science

• debates about whether science is:– objective

opposed to subjective, logical, rational not arbitrary – value free

amoral, neutral, not prejudiced – unbiased

nonrandom error eliminated, not influenced by personal or cultural values

Ethics & Practical Aspects of Ethics & Practical Aspects of Research Relations: Colleagues & Research Relations: Colleagues &

BossesBosses and the Research Process and the Research Process

• getting along with others as part of research

• main source of conflict: sharing recognition & workload

Common types of relationshipsCommon types of relationships (university researchers) (university researchers)

• student-student (teamwork, study groups, classmates)• student-professor (class relationships, research

assistantships, teaching)• research &/or authorship teams (junior & senior

authors, questions of recognition and remuneration)• employee/employer relationships (authorship,

remuneration,)• sponsors/funding organizations

– Controversy about influence of corporate funders:• U. Toronto, pharmaceutrical funding & Dr. Nancy Oliveri

– http://www.ideacityonline.com/presenters/nancy-olivieri/

Discussion of Assignments