Ch4 Ethical Guidelines Flashcards
Tuskegee Syphilis Study
- 1930’s study of 600 black men over long period of time to see how syphilis progresses
- 400 already had syphillis
- unethical
explain how the Tuskegee Syphilis Study illustrates violations of all three ethical principles of the Belmont Report
- not treated respectfully
- were harmed
- targeted, disadvantaged social group
how were the men in Tuskegee not treated respectfully?
- not told if they had syphilis
- not informed of available cures
- didn’t provide informed consent
how were the Tuskegee men harmed?
- not told about penicillin as a cure when it became available (many were illiterate)
- subjected to painful, dangerous tests (spinal taps)
how were the Tuskegee men targeted as a disadvantaged social group?
- syphilis not specific to poor African American men (bad external validity)
- they were chosen because they could be exploited
milgram obedience studies
- “teacher” (participant) has to “shock” “learner” (confederate) when the “learner” makes mistakes on word association test
- level of “shocks” increased until the “learner is unresponsive
- authoritative figure urges “teacher” to continue
results of milgram studies
65% delivered highest “shock” at 450 volts
only 2 or 3/ 100’s of participants refused to give any shocks at all
variations on milgram obedience studies
- learner mentions he has heart condition - same results (65%)
- learner in same room as teacher- 40%
- supervisor down the hall, over the phone instead of in the same room- 20%
what are the questions we should ask concerning ethics in the milgram studies?
- is it unethical to put participants through such a stressful experience?
- were there any lasting effects after participants were debriefed?
debrief
to be carefully informed of study’s hypothesis
how were the participants of milgram’s studies debriefed? how did the participants feel?
originally debrief showed “learner” unharmed, but didn’t mention that he didn’t receive shocks/ was a confederate
people were disturbed by their capacity to do harm regardless of whether the pain was actually inflicted
how could milgram have balanced risk to participants more?
after the initial study he could have adjusted the experiment to produce less anxiety
the Belmont report
report made at the request of congress (1976) outlining 3 principles for ethical decision making:
1) the principle of respect for persons
2) the principle of beneficence
3) the principle of justice
the principle of respect for persons
1) participants should be free to decide whether they want to participate in a study.
- includes informed consent
- no coercion, misleading, or undue influence
2) certain groups are less autonomous and entitled to special protection in terms of informed consent (children, cognitively disabled, prisoners)
- consent can sometimes come from parents or guardian in these cases
informed consent
gives participants info on the research project and its risks and benefits so they can decide whether they want to participate
coercion
implicit or explicit suggestion that not participating will lead to negative consequences
undue influence
offering incentives too attractive to refuse
principle of beneficence
researchers must take measures to protect participants from harm and ensure wellbeing
- weigh risks and benefits
researchers can’t withhold treatments known to be helpful to participants
- if this is found out halfway through a study, treatment needs to be made available to control group
anonymous study
researchers don’t collect any identifying info
confidential study
researchers collect some identifying info and prevent it from being disclosed
the principal of justice
looks at the balance btwn participants and those who benefit from the research
- who bore the risks and who reaped the benefits?
under what cases can researchers study a sample from a particular population (ethnic group, institutionalized people?) example?
must be because the problem they’re studying is especially prevalent in that population
ex: tuberculosis study on institutionalized people b/c it is particularly prevalent in institutions
why do research hospitals and universities have committees?
to decide if research complies with ethical guideline
the “common rule”
in the US federally funded agencies follow the common rule:
describes ways the Belmont report should be applied in research
(ex: explains informed consent procedure, ways to approve research)
in colleges, policies require those involved with research w/ human participants to be…
… trained in ethically responsible research
they may have to take a course- Responsible Conduct of Research, administered by CITI program
APA ethical principles
the “ethical principles of psychoanalysts and code of conduct”
contains 5 principles for guiding individual aspects of ethical behavior
who does the APA ethical principles protect?
research participants, also students in psych classes, therapists’ clients
the 5 APA ethical principles
A. beneficence and non-maleficence B. fidelity and responsibility C. Integrity D. Justice E. Respect for peoples rights and dignity
A. Beneficence and Non-Maleficence
- treat people in ways that will benefit them
- don’t cause suffering
- conduct research that will benefit society
B. Fidelity and Responsibility
- establish trust
- professional behavior
- you can't be a therapist to your student - no sexual relationships w/ clients
C. Integrity
strive to be accurate, truthful, honest in role (teacher, practitioner, researcher)
- teach accurately
- therapists must stay current on empirical evidence for therapeutic techniques
D. Justice
- treat all groups fairly
- sample participants from same population that will benefit from research
- be aware of biases
E. Respect for people’s rights and dignity
- recognize people as autonomous agents
- protect people’s rights
- privacy
- to give consent for treatment/research
- confidentiality
- understand some populations less able to give autonomous consent, take precautions against coercion
10 ethical standards
- similar to enforceable rules or laws
- psychologist members of APA who violate standards can lose license/ be disciplined
Ethical standard 8
contains ethical standards specific to research
8.01- Institutional Review Boards
8.02- Informed consent
8.07- Deception
8.08- Debriefing
research misconduct
8.10- Data fabrication (+ falsification)
8.11- Plagiarism
8.09- animal research
8.01 Institutional Review Boards
(IRB) committee responsible for making sure research using humans is done ethically
- in US, mandated by law in institutions
who are the members of an IRB?
5 or more members
- scientist
- someone w/ academic interest outside of science
- community member w/ no ties to institution
if proposal involves prisoners, one member must be
- designated prisoner advocate
To conduct an experiment w/ humans, one must first…
submit application to IRB
reviewers review
- risks/benefits
- procedures for informed consent
- protection of privacy
then decide if approved
8.02 Informed Consent
- researcher’s obligation to explain study to potential participants before they decide
- usually in the form of a written document
what does an informed consent document contain?
- risks and benefits
- statement about any experimental treatments
have to inform people where data is confidential
under what circumstances is informed consent not necessary?
- if not likely to cause harm + in an educational setting
- anonymous questionnaires (still need to give overview about purpose of study, and how they can get help if upset by it
- if study involves naturalistic observation in low-risk public setting
what decides if informed consent is necessary?
the institution’s regulations decide if it’s necessary
- usually still must be approved by IRB
8.07 Deception
2 types: omission and commission
- omission: withhold details- if participants knew what study was about, might change how they act
- commission: lying, giving a cover story about study to minimize change in behavior
example of omission
milgram experiment- didn’t know learner was a confederate, not actually shocked
scientist stories- didn’t know other participants read different stories than them
when using deception, what do you have to be clear on?
- why using it
- risks/benefits - (upholds principle of respect for persons by informing participants)
- debrief after
how does the ethical standard on deception uphold the Belmont report?
- upholds principle of respect for persons by informing participants of risks + benefits
- upholds principle of beneficence by weighing cost of deception vs cost of not using deception
APA principles require deception used as last resort
8.08 Debriefing
- after using deception researchers must debrief participants
- done verbally: researcher explains why deception was used + nature of deception
- in universities, student participants in studies not using deception get written description of study goals, hypothesis, + references
types of research misconduct
- data fabrication (8.10) and falsification
- plagiarism (8.11)
8.10 Data fabrication
where researchers invent data that fits their hypothesis
Data falsification
researchers selectively delete observations or influence participants to act a certain way
example of data falsification
Diedrick Stapel at first changed occasional data points, later entire data sets
What are the consequences of data fabrication and falsification?
misleads people on actual state of support on theory
ex: measles MMR vaccine + autism- fraudulent data lead to measles outbreak
why do researchers falsify data?
- reputation, income, promotions (professors)
- might be biased, convinced of hypothesis- think contradictions inaccurate
8.11 Plagiarism
representing words and ideas of someone else w/out appropriate credit (stealing intellectual property
to avoid plagiarism…
- cite sources of ideas that aren’t your own (APA format)
- after paraphrasing someone (using your own words): (last name, year published)
- Quoting: “quote” (author name, year published, page #)
8.09 Animal Research (list APA guidelines)
- care for them humanely
- use as few as possible
- research must be important enough to validate animal use
animal research must follow what kinds of laws?
- federal and local laws for animal protection
- in US, Animal Welfare Act (AWA) mandates research institutions to have a local board (IACUC)
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)
In the US, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) mandates research institutions to have a local board- like an IRB for animal research
who are the members of IACUC
at least 3 members:
- vet
- practicing scientist (who’s familiar with animal research protocols)
- local community member (not tied to institution)
what’s the process for getting animal research approved by IACUC?
- researchers submit extensive protocol
- states how animals will be treated/ protected
- scientific justification (study hasn’t been done before, why research is important)
- after approval, IACUC monitors treatment of animals during process
- lab inspection every 6 months
- if lab violates procedure, can stop experiment, shut lab down, or cut funding
Animal Care Guidlines
animal researchers in U.S. use “The Guide for the Care and Use of Lab animals”
- contains the “three r’s”
- Replacement
- Refinement
- Reduction
also provides guidelines on
- housing (cage sizes)
- diet
- if need to be in social groups
- temperature
- sanitation
- enrichments
Replacement
encouraged to use alternatives to animal subjects whenever possible
(ex: computer simulations)
refinement
researchers must modify experimental procedures and animal care to minimize or eliminate animal distress
reduction
use fewest amount of animals possible in experimental designs + procedure to answer research Q’s
what does support for animal research look like?
- 47% of Americans support it
- most psych students and faculty support it
- the more education people have, more likely to back it (especially after reading AWA requirements)
what are Animal Rights groups arguments against animal research
1) animals are just as likely to suffer as humans are, should be treated w/ equal respect
2) animals have rights, equal to human rights
- relates to Belmont report principle of justice- that animals shouldn’t bear burden of research that benefits humans
- argue that researchers treat animals as resources rather than beings with rights
What arguments do animal researchers use to defend use of animals?
1) (central argument) animal research has many benefits to both humans and animals
- Belmont report- weighing costs and benefits
- ex: basic and applied research processes of vision, disease prevention, therapeutic drugs
2) researchers are sensitive to animals well-being, try to minimize distress whenever possible
- IACUC oversight process + “the Guide for the care and use of Lab Animals” help ensure care
3) researchers over time have vastly reduced # of animals used in research
what does ethical decision making require, what kind of process is it?
- balance of priorities
- nuanced process, not black and white, evolving, dynamic
What priorities do researchers and IRB’s weigh?
- potential harm to human/animal participants vs what knowledge gained will contribute to society
- how to compensate people in study-
- paying could entice a variety of population
- if reward is too large, people might feel like they have no choice (undue influence)
Emotional Contagion Facebook study
tested effect of emotional contagion through social networks
withheld certain posts from newsfeeds
1) positive posts w/held
2) random posts w/held
3) negative posts w/held
FB then measured how many negative or positive emotion words users used
results of Emotional Contagion FB study
- those who saw less positive posts posted more negatively, and vice versa
- but effect size was very small- not significant
what questions about ethics did the FB study raise?
Q: was it reviewed by IRB?
A: no- FB didn’t need it as a private company, Cornell IRB decided it didn’t fall under it’s program
Q: was there informed consent?
A: study’s authors say FB data use policy constitutes informed consent
– Journal Study included “Editorial Statement of Concern” stating it didn’t allow participants to opt out
Deception and Debriefing in FB study
- participants not told newsfeeds were manipulated
- deceived through omission
- no debrief- not clear who participated in study
Respect for Persons in FB study
- not really informed consent
- might not be necessary in a “public place” where people consent to being observed
Beneficence in FB study
did it harm participants? help society?
minor suffering, minor help.
some argue FB already manipulates newsfeed via algorithm
Principle of Justice in FB study
where those who participated representative of those who would benefit?
yes, randomly chosen
