Ethical Issues in Psychological Research
I received this Short Messaging Service [SMS] on my Mobile from a friend -
"Bern [A lady]. Dun forget your mask.. theme is pimp & whore so come sexy.. Meet at Mohd Sultan at 8pm ."
Apparently this is her reply to me when I enquired whats the programme like for our Halloween Party this weekend.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In all forms of psychological experiments conducted today, they would be subjected to a Code of Conduct for Ethical Principles of Psychologists which was developed by American Psychologists Association [APA]in 2002.
Ethics emerge from value conflicts. In research, these conflicts are expressed in many ways: individuals' rights to privacy versus the undesirability of manipulation, openness and replication versus confidentiality, future welfare versus immediate relief, and others. Each decision made in research involves a potential compromise of one value for another. Researchers must try to minimize risks to participants, colleagues, and society while attempting to maximize the quality of information they produce.
Research ethics are codes or guidelines that help reconcile value conflicts. Although ethical codes provide direction, the decisions made in research must be reached by considering the specific alternatives available. The choices made in each case weigh the potential contribution of the research against the potential risks to the participants. Weighing these alternatives is essentially subjective, entails matters of degree rather than kind, and involves a comparison between the experiences required in the research and those expected in everyday life.
Ethical codes in research provides responsibility to participants [subjects, clients, respondents] to colleagues, professional associations, sponsoring agencies, the public at large, or society. More discussion has been devoted to the ethics involving participants than to the ethics involving the other groups. The amount of attention given to participants derives historically from biomedical experimentation in which subjects have been exposed to serious risks and irremediable harm. The emphasis on participants in biomedical ethical codes and government regulations has been extended to all types of research. This situation has led to misunderstanding and debate because it blurs the distinctions between biomedical experimentation on human subjects and social science.
Social work researchers and other social scientists, partly because of developments in the medical sciences, have begun to address the particular ethical issues that arise in their work. Debates have taken place regarding particular studies that illustrate alternative resolutions of moral dilemmas. Key studies such as Milgram's research on obedience to authority [1963], Humphreys's research on homosexuals [1970], and the Project Camelot study by Horowitz aimed at preventing revolutions [1967] have helped clarify the issues and suggest resolutions.
- David F. Gillespie
The 3 main characteristics a Research Psychologists should take into consideration when conducting experiments are:
+ Treating participants with respect
+ Caring for the welfare of animals
+ Be scrupulously honest with data
The last characteristic was put to test when on May 16, 1997, President Clinton apologized to the survivors and families of hundreds of men used in a research project to study the progression of untreated syphilis. These men were mainly sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama (the area surrounding Tuskegee). They were poor, African American, and had few resources available to them.
In 1932, when they were offered free medical care by physicians and researchers involved with the United States Public Health Service, they believed they had found treatment for what they had been told was "bad blood." Instead, they were enrolled in an observational research study, without their knowledge or consent.
In exchange for their participation (which included agreeing to an autopsy at death), the men received free medical examinations (primarily to provide data for the study), transportation and hot meals on the days of their examinations, and $50 for burial expenses. Even though some rudimentary remedies for syphilis were available in the early years of the study, they were not offered to these men, so that the study of the natural history of the untreated disease would not be jeopardized.
The study (the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Male Negro 2) did not end until 1972, forty years after it had begun, and twenty years after penicillin had been identified as an effective treatment for syphilis.
The New York Times headline exposing the experiment read, "Syphilis victims in U.S. study went untreated for 40 years." The article revealed the details of the study and called it "the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history."
According to the Report of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Legacy Committee, "In the almost 25 years since its disclosure, the Study has moved from a singular historical event to a powerful metaphor. It has come to symbolize racism in medicine, ethical misconduct in human research, paternalism by physicians, and government abuse of vulnerable people."
According to President Clinton, "The legacy of the study at Tuskegee has reached far and deep, in ways that hurt our progress and divide our nation. We cannot be one America when a whole segment of our nation has no trust in America. An apology is the first step, and we take it with a commitment to rebuild that broken trust. We can begin by making sure there is never again another episode like this one. We need to do more to ensure that medical research practices are sound and ethical, and that researchers work more closely with communities."
Of course, researchers have no way to know whether participants truly understand what they're agreeing to. That's hard enough with lab-based or face-to-face studies where researchers have one-on-one contact with participants. And to date there is no standardized method for collecting and validating informed consent online. That's something psychologists should be developing, says psychologist Kent Norman, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, one of the pioneers of Web-based research.
Debriefing participants about the study and any deception that might have occurred is even trickier and may not be conducive to Web-based studies, say some researchers. Researchers normally conduct debriefing face-to-face with participants so they can handle any questions or concerns. And, although they can easily provide a written debriefing statement at the end of a study or through e-mail, there is no way to guarantee that participants will actually read it. In addition, if participants become distressed or emotional over some aspect of the study, researchers will never know - Beth Azar [Monitor on Psychology, 2004]
In conclusion, the National University of Singapore [NUS] has recently revised their Ethical Guidelines for Research with Human Participants [June 2004] and several points highlighted includes -
1. Participants should give informed consent.
2. Participants should not be given unduly hurtful or stressful procedures.
3. Deception of participants is to be avoided.
4. Use of psychological tests should observe the relevant guidelines.
5. Participants should be debriefed as appropriate.
6. Confidentiality in respect of all results, biodata or other information relating to participants must be observed.
7. Investigators must not misrepresent their skills or allow an assumption of professional expertise to stand uncorrected.
8. Permission is to be obtained through proper channels where outside institutions or organisations are involved.
9. The University, the Department and its discipline should not be brought into disrepute by discourteous or irresponsible actions.
10. Supervisors must not put pressure on students to undertake projects about which the student has ethical objections.
11. Illegal activities will automatically be deemed unethical.
You can view the detailed procedures here.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
References:
Ethical Issues in Research Involving Human Participants
Prepared by
Cynthia B. Love, M.L.S., National Library of Medicine
Elizabeth J. Thomson, M.S., R.N., National Human Genome Research Institute
Charmaine D. Royal, Ph.D., National Human Genome Research Institute; Howard University
[1999 May]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Ethical Guidelines and Issues for Psychological Research
Prepared by
College of Charleston, South Carolina [March, 2004]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Ethical Issues in Research
Prepared by
Stephen M. Marson, Ph.D., ACSW
Professor, Social Work Program
University of North Carolina@Pembroke
"Bern [A lady]. Dun forget your mask.. theme is pimp & whore so come sexy.. Meet at Mohd Sultan at 8pm ."
Apparently this is her reply to me when I enquired whats the programme like for our Halloween Party this weekend.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In all forms of psychological experiments conducted today, they would be subjected to a Code of Conduct for Ethical Principles of Psychologists which was developed by American Psychologists Association [APA]in 2002.
Ethics emerge from value conflicts. In research, these conflicts are expressed in many ways: individuals' rights to privacy versus the undesirability of manipulation, openness and replication versus confidentiality, future welfare versus immediate relief, and others. Each decision made in research involves a potential compromise of one value for another. Researchers must try to minimize risks to participants, colleagues, and society while attempting to maximize the quality of information they produce.
Research ethics are codes or guidelines that help reconcile value conflicts. Although ethical codes provide direction, the decisions made in research must be reached by considering the specific alternatives available. The choices made in each case weigh the potential contribution of the research against the potential risks to the participants. Weighing these alternatives is essentially subjective, entails matters of degree rather than kind, and involves a comparison between the experiences required in the research and those expected in everyday life.
Ethical codes in research provides responsibility to participants [subjects, clients, respondents] to colleagues, professional associations, sponsoring agencies, the public at large, or society. More discussion has been devoted to the ethics involving participants than to the ethics involving the other groups. The amount of attention given to participants derives historically from biomedical experimentation in which subjects have been exposed to serious risks and irremediable harm. The emphasis on participants in biomedical ethical codes and government regulations has been extended to all types of research. This situation has led to misunderstanding and debate because it blurs the distinctions between biomedical experimentation on human subjects and social science.
Social work researchers and other social scientists, partly because of developments in the medical sciences, have begun to address the particular ethical issues that arise in their work. Debates have taken place regarding particular studies that illustrate alternative resolutions of moral dilemmas. Key studies such as Milgram's research on obedience to authority [1963], Humphreys's research on homosexuals [1970], and the Project Camelot study by Horowitz aimed at preventing revolutions [1967] have helped clarify the issues and suggest resolutions.
- David F. Gillespie
The 3 main characteristics a Research Psychologists should take into consideration when conducting experiments are:
+ Treating participants with respect
+ Caring for the welfare of animals
+ Be scrupulously honest with data
The last characteristic was put to test when on May 16, 1997, President Clinton apologized to the survivors and families of hundreds of men used in a research project to study the progression of untreated syphilis. These men were mainly sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama (the area surrounding Tuskegee). They were poor, African American, and had few resources available to them.
In 1932, when they were offered free medical care by physicians and researchers involved with the United States Public Health Service, they believed they had found treatment for what they had been told was "bad blood." Instead, they were enrolled in an observational research study, without their knowledge or consent.
In exchange for their participation (which included agreeing to an autopsy at death), the men received free medical examinations (primarily to provide data for the study), transportation and hot meals on the days of their examinations, and $50 for burial expenses. Even though some rudimentary remedies for syphilis were available in the early years of the study, they were not offered to these men, so that the study of the natural history of the untreated disease would not be jeopardized.
The study (the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Male Negro 2) did not end until 1972, forty years after it had begun, and twenty years after penicillin had been identified as an effective treatment for syphilis.
The New York Times headline exposing the experiment read, "Syphilis victims in U.S. study went untreated for 40 years." The article revealed the details of the study and called it "the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history."
According to the Report of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Legacy Committee, "In the almost 25 years since its disclosure, the Study has moved from a singular historical event to a powerful metaphor. It has come to symbolize racism in medicine, ethical misconduct in human research, paternalism by physicians, and government abuse of vulnerable people."
According to President Clinton, "The legacy of the study at Tuskegee has reached far and deep, in ways that hurt our progress and divide our nation. We cannot be one America when a whole segment of our nation has no trust in America. An apology is the first step, and we take it with a commitment to rebuild that broken trust. We can begin by making sure there is never again another episode like this one. We need to do more to ensure that medical research practices are sound and ethical, and that researchers work more closely with communities."
Of course, researchers have no way to know whether participants truly understand what they're agreeing to. That's hard enough with lab-based or face-to-face studies where researchers have one-on-one contact with participants. And to date there is no standardized method for collecting and validating informed consent online. That's something psychologists should be developing, says psychologist Kent Norman, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, one of the pioneers of Web-based research.
Debriefing participants about the study and any deception that might have occurred is even trickier and may not be conducive to Web-based studies, say some researchers. Researchers normally conduct debriefing face-to-face with participants so they can handle any questions or concerns. And, although they can easily provide a written debriefing statement at the end of a study or through e-mail, there is no way to guarantee that participants will actually read it. In addition, if participants become distressed or emotional over some aspect of the study, researchers will never know - Beth Azar [Monitor on Psychology, 2004]
In conclusion, the National University of Singapore [NUS] has recently revised their Ethical Guidelines for Research with Human Participants [June 2004] and several points highlighted includes -
1. Participants should give informed consent.
2. Participants should not be given unduly hurtful or stressful procedures.
3. Deception of participants is to be avoided.
4. Use of psychological tests should observe the relevant guidelines.
5. Participants should be debriefed as appropriate.
6. Confidentiality in respect of all results, biodata or other information relating to participants must be observed.
7. Investigators must not misrepresent their skills or allow an assumption of professional expertise to stand uncorrected.
8. Permission is to be obtained through proper channels where outside institutions or organisations are involved.
9. The University, the Department and its discipline should not be brought into disrepute by discourteous or irresponsible actions.
10. Supervisors must not put pressure on students to undertake projects about which the student has ethical objections.
11. Illegal activities will automatically be deemed unethical.
You can view the detailed procedures here.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
References:
Ethical Issues in Research Involving Human Participants
Prepared by
Cynthia B. Love, M.L.S., National Library of Medicine
Elizabeth J. Thomson, M.S., R.N., National Human Genome Research Institute
Charmaine D. Royal, Ph.D., National Human Genome Research Institute; Howard University
[1999 May]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Ethical Guidelines and Issues for Psychological Research
Prepared by
College of Charleston, South Carolina [March, 2004]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Ethical Issues in Research
Prepared by
Stephen M. Marson, Ph.D., ACSW
Professor, Social Work Program
University of North Carolina@Pembroke
posted by Inarticulate at 10:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home