1. Three Cases of Ethical Controversy
CHERYL VIERHEILIG
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX
(9/27/2015)
2. Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Study
•Increasing electric shock levels if the pupil made mistakes in this case is an unjust and unfair
treatment in this study.
•Informed consent forms should reveal all the conditions of the study which did not in this case
study.
•Researchers must provide certain essential points of information, such as the purpose of the
research, a description of what the subject will be asked to do, any foreseeable risks of harm,
and that the study is voluntary and subjects are free to withdraw at any time according to the
Belmont Report (Bailey, 2014).
•Extreme stress and potential harm were too great in this study. The researcher should not have
said to keep going on when the participants were being exposed to extreme stress and harm.
3. Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Study cont.
•This obedience study should have followed the necessary guidelines according to the Office for
Human Research Protections that state the meaning of “informed consent”.
•The foreseeable risks of extreme harm were not made prevalent to the participants.
•Voluntariness is an essential component of respect for persons. Research subjects must be free
to choose to participate in research. They also must be free to end their participation for any
reason, without consequences (Bailey, 2014).
•A choice should have been offered to withdraw from the study and not prolong it with the
participants.
4. Laud Humphrey’s Tearoom Trade Study
•Deception was used in this case study and represents violating the principle of voluntary
consent. The researcher did not expose his true identity and posed as another person,
pretending to be something he was not and a lookout person.
•Principles of voluntary consent is an ethical principle that people should never participate in
research unless they explicitly and freely agree to participate (Neuman, 2011).
•The researcher unlawfully recorded license plate numbers which was unethical and against
privacy standards.
5. Laud Humphrey’s Tearoom Study Cont.
•The research violated the automony of the individuals.
•This case present an invasion of privacy, lack of informed consent, and failure to protect against
deductive disclosure of identity.
•Individuals, in a variety of settings, provide personal information with the expectation that it not
be made public according to Hicks, (2014) as showcased in this study.
6. Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment
•Physical and psychological abuse of "prisoners" by "guards" escalated in this case study and
several of the subjects experienced psychological and physical distress less than 36 hours after
the study began.
•The consent process contained no provisions allowing subjects to withdraw at will, and no risks
of harm beyond loss of privacy were addressed.
•According to Zimbardo (2012), the consent form signed by the subjects only allowed them "to
be released from participation for reasons of health deemed adequate by the medical advisers
to the research project or for other reasons deemed appropriate”.
•Clearly, the study lasted too many days as it caused emotional stress on the participants.
7. Addressing Ethical Issues Related to The Research Process &
Participants.
•The Belmont Report outlines three key ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and
justice.
•In addressing ethical issues, respect for others and automony should be consistent and highly
regarded when dealing with subjects of a research study.
•Voluntariness should be incorporated into any research study.
8. Addressing Ethical Issues Related to The Research Process &
Participants Continued.
•Principle of beneficence and what it entails.
•Justice requires that the benefits and burdens of research are equitably distributed.
•Studies focusing on political violence or other illicit activities may expose subjects to legal harms
(Bailey, 2014).
•Research fraud and plagiarism can happen in the research process.
9. Addressing Ethical Issues Related to the Research Site
• When addressing ethical issues related to a research site and whether a setting is public, by
federal definition, is determined in large part by the potential subjects' expectations of privacy,
rather than any absolute distinctions between public and private spaces (Hicks, 2014).
• Researchers who wish to obtain information in a context in which subjects would have a
reasonable expectation of privacy, may choose to use covert observation (concealed audio or
video recording devices, or using a one-way mirror) or assume a role in the setting or group
being studied (Hicks, 2014).
•Such studies raise significant concerns about violation of privacy and require additional
protections and safeguards for subjects. Observational studies in quasi-public places, for
example, hospital emergency rooms, also may raise such concerns (Hicks, 2014).
10. Addressing Ethical Issues Related to Data Collection &
Data Storage
•When addressing ethical issues related to data collection and data storage, interactions may
include communication or interpersonal contact between the subject and the researcher.
•Communication may exist entirely on paper or in electronic realms or online surveys.
•Participant observation is a variant of interaction, often including both formal and informal
interviews in addition to observation (Hicks, 2014).
•Interventions include physical procedures through which data are gathered, such as (1)
measuring brain function to supplement paper and pencil inquiries into the development of
language, and (2) behavioral interventions such as experimental education programs or
unproven psychosocial therapies (Hicks, 2014).
11. Data Analyses
•A systematic investigation is the opposite of a disorganized, random venture.
•Both qualitative and quantitative researchers use systematic investigation in the course of their
research.
•Quantitative researchers may test hypotheses and theories with the data they collect, while
qualitative researchers may generate hypotheses or theories based on the data they gather.
•Quantitative researchers may focus on statistical analyses based on precise measurements.
•Large businesses collect, buy, sell, analyze, and exchange information on people everyday (Neuman,
2011).
12. Conclusion
•When conducting research in an ethical manner, it is essential to uphold and defend the
principles of the social science approach and to demand ethical conduct by others.
•Research participants should not be exploited.
•Informed consent is highly recommended or required.
•Honor participants with privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity.
•Do not coerce or humiliate research participants.
•Share the details of the study design with the results.
•Do not conduct secret research.
•Use a research method that is appropriate to the topic.
13. References
Bailey, L.R. (2014). Ethical Principles of the Belmont Report. Retrieved from:
https://www.citiprogram.org/members/index.cfm?pageID=665&ce=1
Hicks, L.P. (2014). Ethical Principles of the Belmont Report. Retrieved from:
https://www.citiprogram.org/members/index.cfm?pageID=665&ce=1
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. 1979. "The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Research, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research."
Editor's Notes
The Belmont Report is the foundational document of the current system of U.S. human subjects protections. The Belmont Report outlines three key ethical principles for conducting research with human subjects: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. The Belmont Report, in turn, informed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46), which was created in 1974 and later revised. In 1991, Subpart A of these regulations "Basic HHS Policy for the Protection of Human Research Subjects" was adopted by 15 federal agencies and became known as the Common Rule.
A prospective research subject's autonomy is honored through the process of informed consent. The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP 2014) offers these guidelines:
The informed consent process involves three key features: (1) disclosing to potential research subjects information needed to make an informed decision; (2) facilitating the understanding of what has been disclosed; and (3) promoting the voluntariness of the decision about whether or not to participate in the research.
Social researchers sometimes deceive or lie to participants in field and experimental research. Misrepresentation of actions occur at times and deviate from our true actions for legitimate methodological reasons (Neuman, 2011). In this case, if all the participants knew the true purpose, they would modify their behaviour. If we use deception, we should have informed consent (Neuman, 2011). Deception and covert research may increase mistrust and cynicism and diminish public respect for social research (Neuman, 2011).
Researchers who wish to obtain information in a context in which subjects would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, may choose to use covert observation (concealed audio or video recording devices, or using a one-way mirror) or assume a role in the setting or group being studied. Such studies raise significant concerns about violation of privacy and require additional protections and safeguards for subjects(.
Social and behavioral sciences research has the potential to cause psychological and even physical distress (Bailey, 2014).
Risks to subjects are minimized: (i) By using procedures which are consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and (ii) whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes.
Regarding, beneficence, risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (for example, the possible effects of the research on public policy) as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility. When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects (Bailey, 2014). In thinking about justice toward subjects, researchers need to consider equitable selection so that individuals are chosen on the basis of factors clearly relevant to the problems being studied. Researchers also need to consider equitable distribution of advantages to research subjects and others who could benefit from the knowledge gained by the research (Gostin 1991, 191-201).
The Belmont Report outlines three key ethical principles: for conducting research with human subjects: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. These principles should be immediately applied at the onset and continuation of any research study in pursuit and in my future research applications. In addressing ethical issues, respect for others and automony should be consistent and highly regarded when dealing with subjects of a research study. Individuals must be given the choice whether to participate in research, and they must be provided sufficient information and possess the mental competence to make that choice (Bailey, 2014). Voluntariness should be incorporated into any research study. Research subjects must be free to choose to participate in research. They also must be free to end their participation for any reason, without consequences (Bailey, 2014).
Persons are treated in an ethical manner not only by respecting their decisions and protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their well-being. Such treatment falls under the principle of beneficence (Bailey, 2014). Justice requires that the benefits and burdens of research are equitably distributed- that is, no individual or population is exposed to risks of harm while other individuals or populations receive the benefits (Bailey, 2014). Scientific misconduct occurs when a researcher falsifies or distorts the data or the methods of data collection or plagiarizes the work of others. It also includes significant departures from the generally accepted practices of the scientific community for doing or reporting on research. (Neuman, 2011). Research fraud occurs when a researcher fakes or invents data that were not really collected or falsely reports how research was conducted (Neuman, 2011). Plagiarism is fraud that involves someone stealing the ideas or writings of another or using them without citing the source (Neuman, 2011).
It is important to keep in mind that whether a setting is public, by federal definition, is determined in large part by the potential subjects' expectations of privacy, rather than any absolute distinctions between public and private spaces. For example, one might expect that certain behavior, even if conducted in public spaces, is in fact private, such as a conversation in a public park. It is reasonable to assume that one might expect not to be taped while dining with a date at a restaurant.
Interactions include communication or interpersonal contact between the subject and the researcher. Communication does not have to be face to face, and may even exist entirely on paper or in electronic realms. Online surveys that do not ask for any identifying information about the subjects are considered interactions. Participant observation is a variant of interaction, often including both formal and informal interviews in addition to observation. Interventions include physical procedures through which data are gathered, such as (1) measuring brain function to supplement paper and pencil inquiries into the development of language, and (2) behavioral interventions such as experimental education programs or unproven psychosocial therapies. They also include manipulation of the subject or the subject's environment performed for research purposes, for example, studies investigating the effect of music on memory (Hicks, 2014).
A systematic investigation is the opposite of a disorganized, random venture. In other words, researchers need to have constructed a research plan with ideas about what they want to learn and how best to do that. Both qualitative and quantitative researchers use systematic investigation in the course of their research. Both types of research are organized, albeit around differing notions about the role of the researcher, the purpose of the research, the nature of the data collected, and so on. Quantitative researchers may test hypotheses and theories with the data they collect, while qualitative researchers may generate hypotheses or theories based on the data they gather. Quantitative researchers may focus on statistical analyses based on precise measurements; however, it is not necessary for precise, replicable measurements to be collected in order for research to be considered systematic. (Hicks, 2014). Research participants have knowledge about them taken and analyzed by others. The information can then be used for a number of purposes, including actions against the subjects’ interests. Large businesses collect, buy, sell, analyze, and exchange information on people everyday. Private businesses and government agencies use information about buying habits, personal taste, spending patterns, credit ratings, voting patterns, Internet surfing, and the like. Information is a form of private property (Neuman, 2011).
Professional social science associations have committees that review codes of ethics and hear about possible violations but does not strictly enforcement the codes. The penalty for a minor violation rarely goes beyond a letter. If no laws are violated, the main penalty is the negative publicity surrounding a well-documented and serious ethical violation. The publicity may result in the loss of employment, a refusal to publish research findings in scholarly journals, and a prohibition from receiving funding for research—in other words, banishment from the community of professional researchers (Neuman, 2011).
