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