CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH ETHICS Questionable Practices Watson Rayner

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH ETHICS

Questionable Practices • Watson & Rayner (1920) Little Albert • Landis (1924) Rat Beheading • Dennis (1941) Impoverished environment • Nazi Medical Experiments (1939 -1945)

ETHICS IN BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH ■ Ethics – a set of standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession ■ Describes appropriate human action in areas such as business, medicine, health, religion, and research ■ Research ethics is used to identify the actions that a researcher must take to conduct responsible and moral research ■ Engaging in responsible research requires a researcher to anticipate what might happen.

Developing the APA Code of Ethics Late 30’s: Standing APA committee 1947 verdict from the Nuremberg trial included a section called Permissible Medical Experiments, which has come to be known as the Nuremburg Code 1953: First APA code of ethics (Hobbs committee, the critical incidents technique)

Developing the APA Code of Ethics 1974: U. S. Congress passes the National Research Act 1978: The Belmont Report prompted the establishment of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at the local level to review and approve all federally funded research • APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2002 (2010 amendments)

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct n n http: //www. apa. org/ethics/code/index. aspx General Principles n Beneficence and non-malfeasance • Constantly weigh costs & benefits; protect from harm; produce greatest good n Fidelity and responsibility • Be professional; constantly be aware of responsibility to society n Integrity • Be scrupulously honest n Justice • Always treat people fairly n Respect for peoples’ rights and dignity • Safeguard individual rights; protect rights of privacy and confidentiality

Ethical Guidelines for Research with Humans: Identifying Risks ■ – In 1974, as part of the National Research Act, the federal government mandated that IRBs be in place for any college or university receiving federal funds for research. (IRB = Institutional Review Board) At least five people, including at least one member of the outside community and a minimum of one nonscientist (but otherwise a professional) determine whether the project meets ethical guidelines ■ Research protocol: A proposal submitted by a researcher to an IRB, outlining the details of a study he or she wishes to complete and how he or she will address potential ethical concerns ■ – – – Some research is exempt; expedited; full review Public data, public officials Educational data Minimal to no risk; observational data, etc ■ Key factor: degree of risk to subjects

Ethical Guidelines for Research with Humans: Informed Consent ■ Informed consent and deception in research – – Consent: sufficient information to decide whether to participate Assent: consent of minor following description in reasonable language § Deception rationale § Desire to have subjects act naturally § Milgram (1963) obedience study as an example o Cover story effect of punishment on learning o Real purpose limits of obedience to authority § No consent needed in some circumstances § some survey, educational, archival, and observational research

Ethical Guidelines for Research with Humans: Informed Consent, continued. ■ Elements of consent – ■ – – – – Study’s basic description Enough information to decide whether to participate How long participation will take Risks of participation Incentives of participation May quit at any time Confidentiality and anonymity ensured Contact information given (researcher, IRB) Opportunity to obtain final results of the study Signatures

Ethical Guidelines for Research with Humans: Informed Consent Your rights as a participant: ■ Client/patient, student, and subordinate research participants – Researchers must protect potential participants from adverse consequences associated with declining or withdrawing participation in a research study ■ Ex. College students often participate in research. As an incentive, credits toward a particular college course are offered. These credits must be granted in full so long as the student shows up to participate; granting these credits must never be contingent on the student’s actual participation in a study

HUMAN PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH: IRBS AND THE APA CODE OF CONDUCT ■ Offering inducements for research participation – Incentives can include monetary compensation, gift cards, or entry into prize drawing – Researchers should avoid offering excessive or inappropriate incentives that are likely to coerce participants – If the incentive is large enough, participants may participate in a study because the “payoff is too good to pass up” even when their actual intention would be to decline participation – Excessive incentives are viewed as a type of coercion or undue influence

Ethical Guidelines for Research with Humans ■ Historical example of poor consent – Tuskegee Syphilis study (1932 -1972) – MK-ULTRA (CIA & LSD) (50 s-70 s) ■ Consent with special populations – Children and other special groups (e. g. , prisoners) ■ Special care to avoid feelings of coercion Q. When did the U. S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee become unethical? A. The study became unethical in the 1940 s when penicillin became the recommended drug for treatment of syphilis and researchers did not offer it to the subjects.

Ethical Guidelines for Research with Humans: Debriefing : Treating participants well ■ – Debriefing Dehoaxing – Desensitizing ■ Participant crosstalk – Code allows partial debriefing followed by full report at completion of the study ■ – – – Research ethics and the Internet Problems with ensuring consent Problems with conducting effective debriefing Facebook : "Experimental Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks"

Ethical Guidelines for Research with Animals Advantages of using animals in research: ■ The entire life of an animal can be controlled from birth to death ■ Researchers can breed animals to control genetic differences ■ Researchers can control an animal’s living environment The issue of animal rights: ■ Using animals in psychological research – – Aids both humans and animals Sometimes there is no alternative (tissue, simulation/computer model) ■ Nevertheless, animals cannot consent.

ANIMAL SUBJECT RESEARCH: IACUCS AND THE APA CODE OF ■ To protect animals in research, a research CONDUCT study must be reviewed and approved by an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) – IACUC: A review board that consists of at least one veterinarian, one scientist with experience using animals, and one public member from the community

ANIMAL SUBJECT RESEARCH: IACUCS AND THE APA CODE OF The APA code of conduct includes a list of researcher responsibilities to protect CONDUCT the care and use of animals Researchers who use animals in research must do the following: ■ ■ Comply with federal, state, and local laws in the care and use of animals ■ ■ ■ – Make a reasonable effort to minimize discomfort, infection, illness, and pain Use experienced, trained professionals to supervise animals (even student assistants must be trained)! Use justified procedures (incl. surgical) that minimize pain Use appropriate anesthesia in a timely manner to minimize pain Researchers are responsible for the welfare of animal subjects for the full duration of time that they are under the researchers care

ADDITIONAL ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY ■ Scientific integrity – Extent to which a researcher is honest and truthful in his or her actions, values, methods, measures, and dissemination of research ■ Reporting research results – Truthfully report data and never fabricate research results by making up data that were never observed or measured – If or when a researchers make a mistake regarding the data they report, they must correct the mistake as soon as the mistake is discovered

ADDITIONAL ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY ■ Plagiarism – An individual’s use of someone else’s ideas or work that is represented as the individual’s own ideas or work – Researchers are expected to represent their own ideas in published work and, when they use ideas from other people, to appropriately give credit to others ■ Publication credit – All individuals who make substantial contributions to a work must be recognized as authors of that work; those who make minor contributions should also be recognized

ADDITIONAL ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY ■ Duplicate publication of data – The same work should never be published twice without recognition of what is being repubished and why ■ Sharing research data for verification – Researchers are expected to share their data upon request from others for the purposes of inspection, reanalysis, and replication ■ Replication: Reproduction of research procedures under identical conditions for the purposes of observing the same phenomenon

Recent Ethical Dilemmas § Highest gunshot fatality rate in Philadelphia § Temple University doctors noticed better outcomes for patients not intubated (tube inserted in throat to open airways, IV fluids to counteract BP drop) § How can you ethically conduct an experiment under these circumstances? § Informed consent?

Recent Ethical Dilemmas ■ The “Goldwater Rule: ” On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement. - Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry