Advertisement
1 / 21

Ethics in Experimental Research PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 169 Views
  • Uploaded on 22-07-2012
  • Presentation posted in: General

Ethics in Experimental Research. Showing concern for the welfare of human subjects. Horror Stories. Tuskegee syphilis study of 1932 Stanley Milgram’s conformity research of 1963 commercially funded, “for profit” research (2001): conflicts of interest and the “file drawer” problem - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation

Ethics in Experimental Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Ethics in experimental research l.jpg

Ethics in Experimental Research

Showing concern for the welfare of human subjects


Horror stories l.jpg

Horror Stories

  • Tuskegee syphilis study of 1932

  • Stanley Milgram’s conformity research of 1963

  • commercially funded, “for profit” research (2001): conflicts of interest and the “file drawer” problem

  • Pharmaceutical 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 l.jpg

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 veterans l.jpg

The atomic veterans

  • During 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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Outsourcing clinical trials

  • The price of bringing a new drug to market is about $1 million per day

  • Much of that cost is devoted to human clinical trials

  • western 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 l.jpg

Ethical matrix for social science research


Belmont report l.jpg

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 participants

  • Justice:

    • fair distribution of risks and benefits of research

    • subject recruitment, selection

    • subject compensation


How common is research misconduct l.jpg

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. 1662-1663

  • Motivations include

    • tenure and promotion

    • pressure to “publish or perish”

    • lucrative grants, patents

    • fame, notoriety, prestige


Fraud in scientific research l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Exceptions to the consent requirement

Low-risk anonymous surve

Observations gathered in public places

Information in the public domain


Failure to obtain informed consent l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 l.jpg

Privacy concerns

  • Humphrey’s (1970) “tea room” trade research

  • Personnel action—failure to ensure anonymity

  • Incest case—failure to remove identifying information


Privacy concerns18 l.jpg

Privacy concerns

  • Anonymity: no one including the experimenter can match the data to specific individuals

  • Confidentiality: the experimenter knows participants’ identities but takes steps to protect participant’s privacy.


Standards governing social science research l.jpg

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 l.jpg

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 subjects

  • Thanking subjects and providing for future contact if necessary


Treating participants with respect and dignity l.jpg

Treating participants with respect and dignity

  • the “subjects” versus “participants” controversy

  • avoiding “isms” in research; sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, ageism, etc.

  • ethics of withholding treatment from control groups