ethics Flashcards
milgrams 1960s experiment
An experiment into obedience.
Would a normal person carry out horrific acts just because they were “following orders”?
Experimenter would issue simple commands to continue and very few subjects would refuse and stop.
About 60% of subjects gave the full level of shock but many demonstrated signs of severe stress.
he was criticised for exposing his volunteers to extreme levels of stress, for producing what could be long-term adverse effects on their self esteem and dignity and because of the degree of perception involved for destroying their trust in psychologists (Baumrid 1964).
implications milgram
- People can do terrible things in the name of science.
- “Teachers” in Milgram’s experiments.
Milgram himself.
- “Teachers” in Milgram’s experiments.
zimbardos stanford prison experiment
- Volunteers randomly assigned roles of inmates or guards.
- Zimbardo took role of governor.
- Aimed to show that prisons always led to dehumanisation of inmates.
- Bullying and intimidation quickly broke out.
- Inmates were dehumanised.
- Experiment had to be ended early.
Zimbardo said that it should never be repeated.
BPS code of conduct
- Covers both research and clinical practice
- Based on ethical principles of:
- Respect
○ Privacy, power, individual - Competence
○ Knowledge of own limits,
○ caution making claims - Responsibility
○ Accountability, responsibility - Integrity
Honesty, fairness, addressing misconduct
- Respect
BPS practice guidelines
- Legal framework for psychological work
- Cycle of professional practice
- Reflective practice
- Development, training and leadership
HCPC + BPS
(Health Care Professional Council)
protected titles
- Practitioner psychologist
- Registered psychologist
- Clinical psychologist
- Forensic psychologist
- Counselling psychologist
- Health psychologist
- Educational psychologist
- Occupational psychologist
Sport and exercise psychologist
HCPC titles not bps
- Art psychotherapist
- Art therapist
- Dramatherapist
- Music therapist
Language therapist
BPS code of human research ethics
- Introduced in 1985 - before researchers could do what they wanted
- Principles
- Respect for the autonomy, privacy and dignity of individuals, groups and communities
○ Participants rather than subjects - Scientific integrity
- Social responsibility
- Maximising benefit and minimising harm
- Respect for the autonomy, privacy and dignity of individuals, groups and communities
Respect: Unbiased language
(See also APA guidelines)
* Be specific
* “75 years or older” rather than “elder”
* “Person with a diagnosis of X”
* “Gay men and lesbians” rather than “gay”
* Avoid labels (Put the person first)
* “People with bulimia” rather than “Bulimics”
* Avoid inferred hierarchy or normality
* “typically developing” rather than “normal”
“non-white”
unbiased racial terms
- Does race or ethnicity matter?
- If it does, describe it in most appropriate way relevant for use.
- Use self-identified term where possible.
- Terms to avoid
- “Caucasian” Better to use “European”
- “Black British and Asian British” – not parallel
- “Japanese” – the nationality or the ethnicity
“Asians” – Ok if you really mean anyone from Asian but typically people can be more specific.
BPS guidelines to follow at all times
- Ethical approval
- Required for every study
- Consent
- Participants should be informed of all objectives whenever possible. All aspects influencing willingness to participate need to be given.
- Deception
- This is unacceptable if participants are typically likely to object/show unease once debriefed
- Debriefing
- All information for complete understanding of the study is required
- Withdrawal
- Right to withdraw at any point without implication
- Confidentiality
Information will be treated confidentially unless discussed beforehand
why get ethical approval
- It is not a legal requirement.
- Required if you are a member of BPS.
- ESRC (research funder) requires all research in the university to be approved.
- The university requires it.
Journals require it.
ethical approval within the school
- All studies within the school are reviewed – proceed only with approval
- Committee reads proposal and decisions are guided by external policies
- Nuremberg code/Declaration of Helsinki
- British Psychological Society, Funding bodies
- Local Laws: Mental capacity act; Data protection act; Human tissue act; Equality and diversity act, etc
- Committee highlights issues
- Some studies rejected/request significant changes
Studies with NHS patients or staff require NHS approval
key things considered by ethics committee
- Is informed consent obtained?
- How are data handled/stored?
Are participants debriefed?
informed valid consent
- Researcher’s name and way to contact them.
- Any risks in taking part
- A statement about data protection.
- A statement that they are free to withdraw.
- Who to contact if they have a complaint.
- The amount of any money or course credit that would be given for participation.
- How long the research will take.
- A description of what they can expect to happen during the research.
- Must consider whether consent can be given
Age, mental capacity, understanding.
Anonymity and confidentiality
- Anonymous data cannot be traced back to the individuals.
- Can be stored indefinitely/published.
- Does not fall under GDPR
- Confidential data can be traced to an individual but by a restricted set of people.
- Participant can withdraw their data (usually).
- Falls under GDPR.
- Should be stored for a stated length of time.
Ideally, should be anonymised at earliest opportunity.
GDPR New data protection act
- “Data” are secured and used only for agreed purpose.
- All personal data held needs to have a legal basis (inc. research data):
- Consent - don’t collect data under legal basis of consent
- Public task
- Participants need to know who data controller is and the legal basis.
- Special categories:
racial or ethnic origin; political opinions; religious or philosophical beliefs; trade union membership; genetic data; biometric data; health; sex life; sexual orientation.
When to break confidence
- University and legal requirements:
- Child or vulnerable adult is at risk.
- Terrorism prevention.
- Consent form may add more:
- The individual’s health or life is at risk.
- Other people’s health or life is at risk.
Consent form should explain when and how confidence would be broken.
debriefing
- Explain what the research was about
- Resolve any deception.
- Return individual to original emotional/physical state.
- Allow participant to ask questions.
- State researchers’ contact details.
Details of who to go to if there is a complaint.
what is ethical
- Where do you draw the line?
- What is ethical and what is not?
- Not clear cut, much more subtle and not necessarily a “correct” answer
School ethics committees and researchers (including you) need to make difficult decisions
what is going wrong if anything
- IRBs or University Ethics committees have a conflict of interests.
Journals not considering the ethics of the studies reported to them (reliance on IRBs).
summary
- Bad practices have led to the need for ethical codes in research.
- Informed consent, withdrawal, debrief, confidentiality
- There are often grey areas.
Research is reviewed by IRB
what is a system of ethics?
a set of “standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession” - American heritage dictionary 1992. members of the psychology profession are obligated to follow the code of ethics set by the app. the research psychologists must treat human research participants with respect and in a way that maintains their rights and dignity, care for the welfare of animals when they are the subjects of research and be scrupulously honest in the treatment of the data.
developing a code of ethics for psychological science
psychologists in the US published their first formal code of ethics in 1953 (APA 1953) and it was influenced by the Nuremberg code. The document was the outcome of about 15 years of discussion within the APA, which had created a temporary committee on scientific and professional ethics in the late 1930s. This soon became a standing committee to investigate complaints of unethical behavior (usually concerned with the professional practice of psychology) that occasionally were brought to its attention. In 1948, this group recommended the creation of a formal code of ethics. As a result, the APA formed a Committee on Ethical Standards for Psychologists, chaired by Edward Tolman (Hobbs, 1948). the committee took an empirical approach when developing the code. using a procedure Called the critical incidents technique. the committee surveyed the entire membership of the APA (about 7,500 members at the time), asking them to provide examples of “incidents” of unethical conduct they knew about firsthand and “to indicate what [they] perceived as being the ethical issue involved” (APA, 1953, p. 4). The request yielded over 1,000 replies. Although most concerned the practice of psychology (e.g., psychotherapy), some of the reported incidents involved the conduct of research (e.g., research participants not being treated well). A second committee, chaired by Nicholas Hobbs, then organized the replies into several drafts that were published in American Psychologist, APA’s primary journal; readers were encouraged to comment on the drafts. The APA’s council of directors accepted a final version of the code in 1952 and it was published the next year. Although it was concerned mainly with professional practice, one of its sections in this first ethics code was called “Ethical Standards in Research.
current APA ethics code
made in 2002. includes a set of 5 general principles and 89 standards clustered into 10 general categories. they are designed to ‘ guide and inspire psychologists towards the very highest ideals of the profession’ (APA 2002 p.1062). it establishes specific rules of conduct and provides the basis for any charges of unethical conduct. 5 general principles -
1 - beneficence and nonmaleficence - must weigh benefits and costs of research conducted and seek to achieve greatest good in research with little harm done to others.
2 - fidelity and responsibility - aware of responsibility to society and exemplify highest levels of professional behaviour
3 - integrity - be scrupulously honest in all aspects of the research enterprise.
4 - justice - treat all involved fairly and maintain a level of expertise that reduces the chances of their work showing any form of bias
5 - respect for peoples rights and dignity - vigourous efforts to safeguard confidentiality and protect the rights of those volunteering as research participants.
ethical guidelines for research with humans
includes making a judgement that the benefits of the research outweigh the costs, gaining the informed consent of those participating in the study and treating the research volunteers well during the course of the study and after it has been completed.
weighing benefits and costs - role of the IRB
the dilemma faced by researchers is to weigh the scientific value of the research being planned against the degree of intrusion on those contributing data to the study. on one hand psychological scientists believe in the need to conduct psychological research on a wide range of topics but on the other hand research can create discomfort for those participating in it eg milgram.
an integral part of the process of planning a study involves consulting with others you could ask a research colleague or the formal process concerning a group called the Institutional Review Board or IRB - in a uni or college this consists of 5 people, usually faculty members from several departments and including at least one member of the outside community and a minimum of one nonscientist (Department of Health and Human Services, 1983). they are in all unis or colleges whether or not federal funding is involved. due to complex regulations of research with human subjects IRB members normally go through a training programme.
getting IRB approval
researchers seeking their approval submit a rationale for the study and a description of research procedures, a statement about potential risks to ptps and how these risks will be alleviated and why they can be justified, a copy of study informed consent form and copies of materials used in the experiment.
IRBs distinguish between proposals that are exempt from full review, those eligible for expedited review, and those requiring a full review. For research in psychology, proposals that are exempt from full review include studies conducted in an educational setting for training purposes (e.g., asking students like you to test each other on reaction time in the lab as part of a course requirement), purely naturalistic observation studies of public behavior, survey research that does not assess sensitive topics, and archival research. Proposals receiving expedited review include many of the typical psychology laboratory experiments in basic processes such as memory, attention, or perception, in which participants will not experience uncomfortable levels of stress or have their behavior manipulated in any significant fashion. All other research usually requires a full review by the entire IRB committee
there are grey areas concerning decisions about exempt, expedited and full review so its common partite for unis to ask that all research be given some degree of examination by the IRB.
Sometimes, different members of an IRB are designated as “first step” decision makers; they identify those proposals that are exempt, grant approval (on behalf of the full board) for expedited proposals, and send on to the full board only those proposals in need of consideration by the entire group. At medium and large universities, where the number of proposals might overwhelm a single committee, departmental IRBs are sometimes created to handle the expedited reviews (Murphy, 1999)
important component of IRBs decision - risk involved
sometimes no risk eg in field experiment. subjects may be ‘at risk’ or ‘minimal risk’ in other cases.
The distinction is not razor sharp but is based on the degree to which the people being studied find themselves in situations similar to “those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests” (Department of Health and Human Services, 1983, p. 297). Hence, subjects facing situations like those encountered in daily living that might involve some stress, but not a substantial amount, are considered to be “at minimal risk.” If the risks, physical or mental, are greater than that, participants are said to be “at risk.
When there is minimal or no risk, IRB approval is usually routinely granted through an expedited review, or the proposal will be judged exempt from review. However, when participants are “at risk,” a full IRB review will occur and experimenters must convince the committee that (a) the value of the study outweighs the risk, (b) the study could not be completed in any other fashion, and (c) they will scrupulously follow the remaining ethical guidelines to ensure those contributing data are informed and well treated.
IRB approval - when conducting research outside the university environment the researcher may have to satisfy more than one review board.
A health psychologist, for instance, might be using a local wellness center as a location for studying adherence to an exercise program. In addition to gaining university IRB approval, the researcher will usually need an OK from the center’s research committee before proceeding with the study
IRBs are controversial for 3 reasons
1 - the extent to which IRBs should be judging the details of research procedures and designs (Kimmel, 2007). Researchers legitimately object to non‐specialists (e.g., philosophy professors) passing judgment on methodologies they may not understand or research traditions they fail to appreciate. On the other hand, a poorly designed study has ethical implications. If it is seriously flawed methodologically, its results will be worthless, its participants could be harmed needlessly, and, at a minimum, their time will be wasted.
2 - A second problem is that some researchers complain about IRBs being overzealous in their concern about risk, weighing it more heavily than warranted, relative to the scientific value of a study. One unsettling consequence of IRBs being overly conservative, according to prominent social psychologist Roy Baumeister, is that psychology is rapidly becoming the science of self‐reports and finger movements (keystrokes on a computer) instead of the science of overt behavior. One explanation for the shift from overt behavior to self‐report studies is efficiency; studies that ask subjects to read a scenario (e.g., encountering someone in need of help) and predict how they or others would react can be completed much more quickly than studies that actually place subjects in that scenario and record how they actually react. But another reason, Baumeister et al. argued, has to do with getting IRB approval. Measuring meaningful social behavior (as in the helping behavior example) usually means using deception, and it therefore places more of a burden on researchers to show their participants will be protected. Self‐ report studies are safer.
3 - A third issue that concerns psychologists is that IRBs sometimes overemphasize a biomedical research model to evaluate proposals. As a result, they might ask researchers to respond to requests that are not relevant for most psychological research. For example, they might ask that the consent form include information about procedures or alternative courses of treatment available to those who choose not to participate in the study (Azar, 2002). This makes sense for research evaluating the effectiveness of some medical treatment but makes no sense in most psychological research, where the alternative to participating is simply not to participate. Susan Fiske (2009), a prominent social psychologist and former chair of the IRB at Princeton University, recommended that universities sponsoring medical research should create separate IRBs for medical and behavioral research.
consequence of issues = lack of consistency among IRBs
Several studies have shown that identical IRB proposals have fared differently with different IRB committee members
goals of IRBs
Despite these issues, the primary goal of IRBs is to evaluate any ethical concerns that may arise during the course of the proposed research study. Because IRBs are comprised diverse members and may not include psychologists, they are often guided by the Nuremberg code or Belmont Report, which are broader in scope than the APA code. However, it is the responsibility of the psychology researcher to adhere to the APA code when proposing to the IRB psychological research involving humans because the APA code both encapsulates the Nuremberg code and Belmont Report as well as expands upon them
informed consent and deception in research
the notion that in deciding whether to participate in psychological research, human participants should be given enough information about the studys purpose and procedures to decide if they wish to volunteer.
typical consent forms contain several features
- volunteers agree to participate after learning the general purpose of the study, the basic procedure and the amount of time needed for the session.
- participants understand they can leave the session at any time with no penalty or pressure to continue
- ptps are informed that strict confidentiality and anonymity will be upheld
- there are people to contact if questions linger from study or wish to complain about their treatment and this includes someone from the IRB.
- ptps are informed of any risk that might be encountered in the study and are given the opportunity to receive a summary of the results when study is completed
A new feature of the 2002 revision of the ethics code
is a more detailed set of provisions for research designed to test the effectiveness of a treatment program that might provide benefits but might also be ineffective and perhaps even harmful (Smith, 2003)—a program to treat post‐ traumatic stress disorder, for instance. This revision is found in Standard 8.02b, which tells researchers to be sure to inform participants that the treatment is experimental (i.e., not shown to be effective yet), that some specific services will be available to the control group at the end of the study, and that services will be available to participants who exercise their right to withdraw from the study or who choose not to participate after reading the consent form. Participants must also be informed of the method by which people have been assigned to the treatment and control groups. Although informed consent is essential in most research in psychology, it is important to note that consent is not required for research that is exempt from full review. As Standard 8.05 indicates, consent is not needed in studies using anonymous questionnaires, for data that have already been collected for another purpose (archival data), for classroom projects in which data collection is for demonstration purposes, and for certain employment‐related data collection exercises. Also, consent is not needed for observational studies that occur in certain locations; the key is whether the setting is a public one—if the study occurs in a place where anyone could be observed by anyone else, consent is not needed (Koocher & Keith‐Spiegel, 1998).
informed consent and special populations
Not all research participants are capable of giving consent, due to factors as age or disability, and some persons might experience undue coercion to volunteer for research (e.g., prisoners). In these circumstances, additional procedures apply. For example, the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) follows a set of guidelines that expand upon some of the provisions of the code for adults. unless the participant is an infant or is otherwise not capable of skilled language use, researchers are obligated to inform the child about the study and to gain what is referred to as assent. if under 18 parents or legal guardians give consent. Assent also means the researcher has a responsibility to monitor experiments with children and to stop them if it appears that undue stress is being experienced. In addition to the assent provision, the SRCD code requires that additional consent be obtained from others who might be involved with the study in any way. For example, this would include teachers when a study includes their students. The code also cautions researchers about incentives that might be used, either to induce a willingness to participate or as rewards for tasks completed.
researchers should not use rewards as a way to gain the Childs assent.
Additional provisions for the protection of participants exist with other special populations. Thus, legal guardians must give truly informed consent for research with people who are confined to institutions (e.g., the Willowbrook case). Second, it is imperative to ensure that participants do not feel coerced into volunteering for a study. This problem is difficult to avoid in environments such as prisons because even with the best intentions of researchers, prisoners might believe that their failure to volunteer will cost them in the future and perhaps even affect their future parole status. In general, researchers tend to rely on simple material rewards (e.g., money) and make it clear to prisoners that their participation will not be noted in any way in their parole records (Diener & Crandall, 1978)
issue with confined populations = confidentiality
While normal guidelines for disguising the identity of participants apply, researchers are legally obligated to break confidentiality under circumstances that involve a clear danger (e.g., a prisoner participant reveals he is about to kill another prisoner). research with confined populations should be designed for the expressed purpose of providing knowledge that will in some way benefit the members of that population
deception
Standard 8.07 of the APA code indicates subjects might experience deception in a study if it is determined by the researcher, and agreed to by the IRB, that the study could not be done in any other fashion. That is, participants might not be told the complete details of a study at its outset, or they might be misled about some of the procedures or about the study’s purpose, as in the eyewitness example you just read. Researchers argue that in the absence of deception in certain studies, participants would not act naturally.
Although deception studies with elaborate cover stories are more likely to be found in social psychology than in other research areas (Korn, 1997), the level of deception is minor in most research. Typically, it involves the withholding of some information about the study rather than a cover story that creates the impression that the study concerns topic A when it really involves topic B. That is, most deception research involves omitting some information in the consent process rather than actively misleading participants about what they are to encounter (Fischman, 2000)
treating participants well
Several portions of the ethics code are designed to ensure that volunteers are treated fairly and with respect during their participation, that they receive complete information about the study at its conclusion, that any stress they encounter is relieved, and that their participation is kept private. It is important to note this responsibility extends to everyone involved in the running of the study, from the primary researcher to the graduate students or undergraduates who might actually run the experimental sessions. This problem of risk and potential harm is addressed in the standards relating to informed consent and use of deception and once more in Standard 8.08, which makes it clear that responsibility does not end with the conclusion of the testing session.
debriefing
the researchers answers questions the ptps might have and tells them about the purpose(s) of the study. its not essential that ptps be informed about all aspects of the study immediately after their partcipation. this occurs most often when deception is involved, college students are the ptps and the experimenter is concerned about ptps talking to other potential ptps this can be referred to as participant crosstalk and can ruin a study.
the amount of time spent debriefing depends on the complexity of the study , the presence and degree of deception and the level of potential distress.
In a study involving deception, the researcher often begins a debriefing session by asking participants if they thought the study had a purpose other than the one initially described. This enables the researcher to determine if the deception was effective; it also provides a lead‐in to further explication of the study
example of participant crosstalk
Edlund, Sagarin, Skowronski, Johnson, and Kutter (2009) had subjects estimate the number of beans in a jar. Those participating were then given the correct answer. The question was whether or not these subjects would pass the information along to future participants. Some clearly did just that, although the percentage doing so was small (just under 5%). The percentage was reduced in a second study, when participants were specifically asked not to reveal the number of beans to others who might participate. Aside from urging subjects not to discuss the study after their participation, a common strategy for reducing crosstalk, consistent with Standard 8.08(b), is to provide information about the general nature of the research during debriefing but to provide full information about the study only after the experiment has been completed.
debriefing purposes - Holmes 1967a and 1967b
dehoaxing - revealing to ptps the true purpose of the study and the hypothesis being tested. it amounts to explaining the importance of eliciting natural behaviours and discussing the nature of the research topic being studied.
desensitising - process of reducing stress or other negative feelings that might have been experienced during participation In the study.
subjects are also informed that if they wish they may have their data removed from the data set.
advantages of debriefing
Several studies have shown that participants who are thoroughly debriefed evaluate the research experience positively. Smith and Richardson (1983) showed that, compared to nondeceived subjects, those in deception studies actually rated their experiences higher in both enjoyment and educational value, apparently because the debriefing was more extensive. One result of an effective debriefing is that skilled researchers can better understand their current study and improve future ones. Participants can be asked for their ideas about revising the procedure in order to learn more about the problem being studied. In many cases, their descriptions of what they were thinking about during the experiment can be helpful in interpreting the data and planning the next study
privacy and confidentiality
APA general Principle E
Research participants should be confident their identities will not be known by anyone other than the experimenter and that only group or disguised (coded) data will be reported. The only exceptions to this occur in cases when researchers might be compelled by law to report certain things disclosed by participants (e.g., child abuse, clear intent to harm oneself or another). In research that could involve such disclosure, researchers should word the consent form to make it clear that confidentiality could be limited (Folkman, 2000). The basic right to privacy also applies to research outside of the laboratory that might affect people in daily living situations.
ethical obligations under APA code when using human ptps
- Developing a study in which the overall benefits outweigh the overall costs * Avoiding doing anything that would harm participants * Gaining informed consent (under most circumstances) * Assuring volunteers they can quit the study at any time, without penalty * Providing some form of debriefing * Assuring participants about confidentiality and their anonymity
research ethics and internet
Online research methods of interest psychologist falls into two broad categories - Anderson and Kanuka 2003
The first is some websites are designed to collect from the logging into the site. This is most frequent in form of online surveys and questionnaires but can involve other forms of data collection as well.
In other cases subjects login into sit control by research is on their own campus and complete a study electronically eg a survey created on software such as qualtrics.
Some research has been completed on the issue and it appears that they collected electronically corresponded reasonably well and similar results as data collection more traditional fashion however however is important to know there are differences as on online uses them more likely to use the Internet Internet to look up answers to factual questions have low self-esteem and be more introverted posing challenges to research where such factors may be relevant.
Research are studying the behaviour of Internet users
Ranges from examining the frequency of users of selective websites to an analysis of the content of web-based interactions. the basic principles of research involved in the Internet introduces unique ethical problems for the researcher which has resulted in the development of a code of research created by the association of Internet researchers. And the American Association for the advancement of science outlines for IRBs that must decide whether to approve or online research and the APA board of scientific affairs established and a advisory group on the Internet in 2001 and publish its report three years later. Problems with informed consent and debriefing still exist. Consent forms can be used easily online but there is no opportunity for research as to answer questions and no way to know if the consent form has been read. consent problem concerns age research compose warning parental consent under 18 but is impossible to monitor compliance. Debriefing may also be problematic as online. There’s no guarantee participants will be there to read the debriefing information one click and the participant has gone without being debriefed. Additionally, deception involved while the dehoaxing part of debriefing can be managed by presenting clear information the desensitising part will be difficult if not impossible to accomplish.
internet research privacy and confidentiality
There is an unresolved question with activity such as Twitter feeds Facebook post chat rooms blogs discussion boards are public or private discussions. For the researcher, the best guidelines is to be faithful to the general principles of the code and consult frequently with colleagues and the local IRB during the planning stages of online research and uses of social media is important to be aware that the essence of sophisticated encryptions software messages posted out there are available with an Internet connection.
Concerning confidentiality research is using the Internet survey must take steps to ensure the protection of the users identity. Even participant used his own personal computer. This coming ensuring that cookies are not left on the participants computer as a result of taking the survey and users must be assured that if they computer identity is returned with the survey the research will discard the information.
research with animals
its only about 7-9% of research done in psychology.
rats, mice, dogs, cats and nonhuman primates are used.
Many psychologies important contributions to human welfare are based on a foundation of research of animals.
Animals in psychological research for several reasons
- methodologically - the environmental genetic and developmental histories can be easily controlled and genetic and lifespan developmental studies can take place quickly.
- Most experimental psychologist take the position that with certain safeguards in place animals can be subjected to procedures that could not be used in humans
animal rights
Use of animals and research is an emotional and controversial issue.
Announced use of animals and studies ranging from medical research to cosmetic testing. Activist can find activities who sincere argument and nonviolent protest and they work hard and live a life that’s consistent with their moral stance. however in some cases activism has led to animal las being vandalised and animals released from labs
Some humans have no right to cause themselves to any other sentient species that is any species capable of experiencing pain. Sentient animals are said to have the same basic rights to privacy autonomy and freedom from harm as humans and they can cannot be subjugated by humans anyway including participation any form of research. others Argue humans may have dominion over animals but they also have responsibility to protect them - grounded in a judeo-christian theory.
This argument has helped reduced any necessary research on animals by the cosmetic industry for instance it has been applied to research in psychology as well.
using animals in psychological research
Psychologist don’t agree cent animals have rights equal to those of humans. They agree humans have an obligation to protect them but believe humans come distinguished from non-humans because humans have a degree of awareness ability develop culture and history and ability to make more judgement.
Most psychologists argue that the use of animals in research does not consider exportation that the net affect such research its beneficial rather than costly for both animals and humans.
Miller (1985) argued that situations involving harm to animals during research procedures are rare, used only when less painful alternatives cannot be used, and can be justified by the ultimate good that derives from the studies. he argued that while the long history of animal conditioning research has taught us much about general principles of learning, it also has had direct application to human problems. Finally, Miller (1985) argued that animal research provides direct benefits to animals themselves. Medical research with animals has improved veterinary care dramatically (e.g., developing rabies vaccine), but behavioral research has also improved the welfare of various species eg research on imprinting led to the procedure of exposing newly hatched condors to a puppet resembling an adult condor rather than to a normal human caretaker, thereby facilitating the bonding process for the incubator‐raised bird and ultimately enhancing the survival of this threatened species.
Another area of research involving animals, one that benefits both animals and humans, is anthrozoology—the study of human‐animal interactions. The field is interdisciplinary, and includes behavioral psychologists, veterinarians, anthropologists, animal trainers, and philosophers.
One last point about using animals in psychological research is that most people seem to think animal research has value.
APA code for animal research
Psychologists must follow federal, state, and local laws governing use of animals in research. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) enacted in 1966 is the only federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals used in research. Part of the AWA’s mandate is that institutions where animal research is conducted should have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Like an IRB, the IACUC is composed of faculty from several disciplines in addition to science, a veterinarian, and someone from outside the university.7 Often, the IACUC will use guidelines put forth in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, 2011) in its evaluation of the ethical treatment of animals in research. In addition, psychologists rely on Standard 8.09 of the 2002 APA ethics code, which describes the ethical guidelines for animal care and use ). The APA guidelines for using animals deal with (a) the need to justify the study when the potential for harm to the animals exists; (b) the proper acquisition and care of animals, both during and after the study; and (c) the use of animals for educational rather than research purposes. The main theme of the code is balancing the scientific justification for a particular project with the potential for harm to the animals
animals - justifying the study
Just as a human research must weigh the scientific value of research against the degree of risk of the participants in this case animals. The scientific purpose of the study should fall within four categories. The research should increase the knowledge of the processes underlined the evolution development maintenance alteration control or biological significance of behaviour, determine the replicability and generality of, increase understanding of the species or provide results that benefit the health or welfare of humans or other animals
caring for the animals
Research supervisor must be an expert in the care of the species of animal to be used must carefully train all those who be in contact with the animals and must be fully aware of federal regulations by animal care and awesomeness check the facilities twice annually and beyond as a general consult. The animal should be acquired from legitimate suppliers or bread in the lab if wild animals are studied in a lab they must be trapped humanely.
Once the experiment is completed alternative to destroying the animals should be considered however euthanasia is sometimes necessary. If this happens, the process must be accomplished in the humane manner for the species and anaesthesia on a way to short immediate death and then accordance with the procedures approved by the institutional animal care and use committee.
Using animals for educational purposes
The guidelines are designed to primarily aid researchers who test animals for animals are often use educationally to demonstrate specific behaviours train students and animals research procedures and gives students first experience in studying such well-known phenomena as classical operant conditioning.
Education does not result directly in new knowledge. The educator is urged to use fewer rather than more animals to accomplish purposes and to consider variety of alternative procedures.
Sometimes computer simulations can be substitute for life procedures several reasonably accurate simulations above class called upon condition procedures exist which can be effective.
Most psychologists defend the use of animals in behavioural research while recognising the need to scrutinise closely the rationale for every animals study. Animal research has contributed greatly to our understanding of behaviour and promises to help in the future search for solutions to aids Alzheimer’s disease mental illness and countless other human problems.
scientific fraud
Scientists in general and psychological scientists in particular are expected to be scrupulously honest in all of their scientific activities.
The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) defines fraud as “a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain” (p. 722). The two major types of serious misconduct in science are (1) plagiarism, deliberately taking the ideas of someone else and claiming them as one’s own, and (2) falsifying data.
data falsification
Data are the foundation on which the entire scientific enterprise is built. If there is a mortal sin in science, it is the failure to be scrupulously honest in collecting and managing data. The most egregious sin is data falsification, which occurs when a scientist fails to collect data and simply fabricates a data set, or collects some data, but either manufactures the rest or changes some of the existing data to produce a favorable outcome. Each of these forms of data falsification occurred in a notorious recent case of Diederick Stapel who never conducted his study and made up all the data. Diederik Alexander Stapel is a Dutch former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University. In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel for fabricating and manipulating data for his research publications. This scientific misconduct took place over a number of years and affected dozens of his publications
explanations for fraud - Scientists who publish are promoted, tenured, win grants, and become influential in their fields. Sometimes, the pressure to “publish or perish” overwhelms the individual and leads the researcher (or the researcher’s assistants) to cut some corners. The fraud might begin on a small scale—adding, subtracting, or altering a few pieces of data to achieve the desired outcome—but it may expand over time.
Failure to replicate means some case suspicion and subsequently lead to request to see the raw data. However, failure to produce such data will generate even more suspicions. Scientists and psychology and other disciplines have a weakness to share data and refuse to do so would create concern about the new findings as was in the case of the staple fraud.
