Ethics in Research: Chapter 4 Flashcards
responsibility toward participants
- ensure the welfare, dignity, safety
- for human and nonhuman research participants and
subjects.
responsibility toward science
ensure that public reports of research are accurate and honest.
historical roots of ethics
- Milgram experiment
- Nuremburg Code
- Amercian Psychological Association
- National research act
- Belmont report
Belmont Report: three core principles
-respect of persons
- beneficence
- justice
Tricouncil of Policy Statements
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) - Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada (SSHRC)
Tricouncil Policy Statement: core principles
- respect for persons
-concerns for welfare (beneficence) - justice
ethical principles
- no harm
- informed consent and deception
- anonymity and confidentiality
no harm
- Participants must be informed of what will be
done to them & why (purpose of the study). - Right to withdraw at any time, without consequence.
- Participation must be voluntary and not coerced.
informed consent
- assent is necessary from children and vulnerable populations
- consent is necessary from guardians
- for indigenous populations, consent is required from the community’s gatekeepers
deception
- Passive: leave out information.
- Must always debrief participants immediately afterward.
- Active: alter information (e.g., false feedback) or confederates
- placebo: inform participants that they may or
may not be in this group
anonymity
- Data shared should not allow for the
identification of an individual - Assign code numbers or
pseudonyms - Only group data is reported
confidentiality
- Access to the data is limited to the research
team. - Password-protected files, encryption, and hard copies in locked file cabinets
public information and consent
- the information is legally accessible to the
public and appropriately protected by law - the information is publicly accessible and
there is no reasonable expectation of
privacy.
consent is not required when…
- there is no intervention staged by the
researcher, or direct interaction with the
individuals or groups - there is no reasonable expectation of
privacy - dissemination of research results
does not allow the identification of specific
individuals.
the internet and consent: major issues
- Expectation of privacy
- Persistence & traceability of quotes
privacy when it comes to the Internet
- site requiring a subscription
or registration? - perception of privacy depends on a group’s
norms and codes, target audience, and
objective.
consent is required on the internet when…
there is an expectation for privacy
how would internet users see the situation if they were to learn their information was used in research without their consent?
- do not expect to be research subjects.
- are likely to see it as an invasion of privacy, voyeuristic, and opportunistic
how to protect anonymity when quotes are permanent and traceable?
- do not identify the name of the online
community or provide the website address - anonymize and paraphrase quotations
- use search engines to ensure they are not
traceable - use composite instead of direct quotes
purpose of animal research
- to learn more about animals.
- to conduct research that is impossible to do with humans
- to learn more about humans.
animal ethics: 3 Rs
- REPLACING or avoiding animals in research
- REDUCING the number of animals in research
- REFINING care and procedures to minimize harm
animal ethics guidelines
- proper care, treatment, & maintenance.
- handlers must be properly trained (CCAC)
ethics committees
- University Human Research Ethics Committee
- Animal Care Committee
scientific integrity
- error versus fraud (erratum / retraction).
- safeguards: replication, peer review &
watchdogs. - plagiarism of sources
- data fabrication & falsification of
findings. - ghost-writing & fake peer reviews
Wakefield Study Case: Flaws
- 12 children in the study; not randomly selected but recruited through anti-MMR vaccine campaigners.
- failed to disclose he was hired by lawyers for families suing MMR vaccine maker (was paid $668,000).
- fabricated findings and altered data to suit the hypothesis: vaccine caused gastrointestinal syndrome that triggered autism.
- claimed children were normal prior to
vaccine; 5 had prior developmental problems. - reported that 9 children developed
regressive autism; only 1 did. - for these 9 children changed gut examination
results from “unremarkable” to “colitis”. - case descriptions contradict medical records and parent accounts.