Ethics in Experimental Research Showing concern for the welfare of human subjects.
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Ethics in Experimental Research Showing concern for the welfare of human subjects.
Ethics in Experimental Research
Showing concern for the welfare of human subjects
Horror Stories
Tuskegee syphilis study of 1932Stanley Milgram’s conformity research of 1963commercially funded, “for profit” research (2001): conflicts of interest and the “file drawer” problemPharmaceutical manufacturers “outsourcing” drug trials to poor countries with lax standards (2004)U.S. energy Dept. and radiation tests on civilians (1970’s)LSD and the CIA’s MK Ultra program (1973)
Radioactive oatmeal!
More than 100 boys living in an orphanage were fed Quaker Oats with radioactive iron and calcium in the 1950's.The diet was part of an experiment to prove that the nutrients in Quaker oatmeal travel throughout the body.A class action settlement for $1.85 million was reached in 1998
The atomic veteransDuring and after WWII, American soldiers were forced to observe nuclear blasts within 50 miles of ground zero. Thousands of these soldiers later died of leukemia and other rare forms of cancer.Their families were barred from suing the federal government
Wendell Johnson’s diagnosogenic theory of stuttering
“The Monster Study”In 1938, Wendell Johnson and Mary Tudor trained orphans to be more conscious of small speech errors.Johnson’s theory was that punishing fluency errors made them worse.All five stutterers in the test group showed increased stuttering; five out of six of the normal children exhibited worse fluency. The experiment, referred to by some as the “Monster Experiment” turned some of the children into lifelong stutterers despite later efforts to reverse the damage.
Cloning Fraud
2005: South Korean researcher, Woo Suk Hwang, fabricated evidence that he had successfully cloned human embryos.The journal Science, retracted two studies he had published.
Outsourcing clinical trials
The price of bringing a new drug to market is about $1 million per dayMuch of that cost is devoted to human clinical trialswestern drug makers are outsourcing safety and efficacy studies to developing countries, a large proportion of them to India and Russia.There are currently some 400 clinical trials underway in India
Ethical matrix for social science research
Good ends Bad ends
Good means Ethical research
Subjective ethic (backfires)
Bad means Machiavellian research
Unethical research
Belmont report
Autonomy: Free-choice, no pressure to participate, consideration of “at risk” groups or individuals
persons with diminished autonomy Beneficence: “do no harm,” ensure the well-being of
participantsJustice: fair distribution of risks and benefits of
research subject recruitment, selection subject compensation
How common is research misconduct?
“More than 1 percent of scientists report direct knowledge of an instance of misconduct.” Elliot (2000). How prevalent is fraud? That’s a multi-million dollar question. Science, 290, pp. 1662-1663Motivations include tenure and promotion pressure to “publish or perish” lucrative grants, patents fame, notoriety, prestige
Fraud in scientific research
Intentional fraud Cyril Burt’s research
on monozygotic twins—fudging the results of IQ tests
William Summerlin’s cancer research—faked results of tumor shrinkage
Unintentional fraud Weitzman’s research on
women's and men's incomes following divorce—blamed “computer error” for erroneous results
Pons and Fleischmann's research on “cold” fusion—couldn’t be replicated by other researchers
No harm to the participants
minimizing psychological risks
Example: simulations that accentuate racist, sexist, or homophobic attitudes
minimizing physical risks
Example: behavioral psychologists’ penchant for shocking subjects in the 60’s and 70’s
showing concern for the welfare of participants
Example: Stanley Milgram’s conformity research
Voluntary informed consent
Before conducting any research using human participants, a participant’s voluntary informed consent must first be obtained:
Voluntary: the subject willingly agrees to participate in the study, and is free to withdraw at any time without penalty
Informed: the subject is aware of any risks (physical or psychological) associated with participating
Consent: the subject’s consent is unambiguous, e.g., a signed permission form (no such things as “implied consent”)
Exceptions to the consent requirement
Low-risk anonymous survey
Observations gathered in public places
Information in the public domain
Failure to obtain informed consent
Kinch’s study on the “Pygmalion effect”Problems associated with using freshman in experimental research Can students under 18 legally give their
consent? Should participation in experiments be a
course requirement?
Ethics of participant-observation Going “under cover” to study groups may
violate their rate to privacy
Deception and the use of cover stories
Elms (1982) recommends the following strictures for the use of deception in experimental research: As a last resort: When there is no other feasible way
to obtain the desired information example: studies on student cheating
When the benefits substantially outweigh the risks example: controlled double-blind studies on drug efficacy
When subjects are given the option to withdraw at any time, without penalty
When any physical or psychological harm is temporary
When subjects are debriefed and the research procedures are made available for public review
Privacy concerns
Humphrey’s (1970) “tea room” trade research Personnel action—failure to ensure anonymityIncest case—failure to remove identifying information
Anonymity: no one including the experimenter can match the data to specific individualsConfidentiality: the experimenter knows participants’ identities but takes steps to protect participant’s privacy.
Standards governing social science research
at the department level Human Subjects Committees
at the university level: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
professional associations American Psychological Association’s
“Ethical Guidelines” Code of Ethics” of the American
Speech Hearing and Language Association
Debriefing participants
Dehoaxing: undoing the cover story and revealing the true
purpose of the investigation
Desensitizing: addressing any lingering psychological or
emotional concerns associated with participating in the investigation
Explaining the benefits of participation to subjectsThanking subjects and providing for future contact if necessary
Treating participants with respect and dignity
the “subjects” versus “participants” controversyavoiding “isms” in research; sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, ageism, etc.ethics of withholding treatment from control groups