Ethics

Ethics Just because researchers could do a study, doesn’t mean that they should Is the science adding to a body of knowledge? Is the research valid? Inadvertent transgressions The possibility of violating someone’s basic rights is always present

Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment ( ) Sample: 399 poor, rural, African American men who had contracted syphilis prior to the study Study was interested in the progress of syphilis Participants thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. Government Participants were not informed that they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated Participants who sought outside health care were dropped from the study Local physicians had to promise not to treat participants In the1940s, penicillin becomes widespread Participants were still never treated

Is This Ethical? The researchers who were responsible believed for the most part that their study was ethical They thought that the medical knowledge gained was an important contribution to science They argued that the men in the study were not being “harmed” by the study i.e. the researchers weren’t doing anything to worsen the disease The men were receiving free medical examinations that they would not have received otherwise In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reaffirmed the need for the study after concerns about the study were raised American Medical Association (AMA) approved

Nuremberg Code Nazis during WWII Prisoners in the Nazi concentration camps were forced to be participants in experiments Interested in the limits of the human body Participants were exposed to extreme temperatures, infections, & noxious chemicals Nuremberg Code Nuremberg trials (1945 – 1949) Nazi officials tried for war crimes Developed by officials involved in the trials Early attempt to specify ethical standards for human research 2 Key points: 1. Informed consent 2. Coercion

APA Code (1953) Adds 2 elements: 1. Deception Researchers must reduce harm due to deception 2. Confidentiality Ensure confidentiality of participant data

Children (under 18) Fetuses/Pregnant Women Handicapped Animals Students Prisoners Low Socioeconomic Class Vulnerable Populations

Ethics Are we not to find answers for important behaviors that are difficult to study? Previous "unethical" studies...

Milgram (1961) Milgram (1961) Obedience studies

Milgram (1961)

Asch (1951) Conformity studies

Asch (1951)

Zimbardo (1971) Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo (1971)

Belmont Report Started in years of hearings in Washington D.C. 3 main conclusions: 1. Respect for persons Show respect for individuals as autonomous agents and protection for those with diminished ability to protect themselves 2. Beneficence Maximize benefit and minimize harm 3. Justice Use fairness when distributing risks and benefits IRB is set in motion

Institutional Review Board (IRB) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Requires all institutions where research is conducted (e.g., universities & colleges, hospitals, companies, etc.) to have an IRB to oversee research Provides a more objective evaluation of the ethics of a study At least 5 members on IRB

Institutional Review Board (IRB) 3 Categories of Review: 1.Exempt Studies Smallest amount of risk involved 2.Expedited Studies Involve minimal risk 3.Full-Review Studies Highest amount of review

SUNY New Paltz IRB

CITI Instructions: Training:

Informed Consent A participant’s right to understand what will happen in the study, and then agree to participate. Sample:

Informed Consent Include: 1. Describe what the study is about 2. Describe what the participant will do 3. Explain the potential benefits of the research 4. Explain any risks to the participant 5. Describe what the researcher will do to protect the participant’s privacy 6. Explain that participation is voluntary 7. Describe any compensation the participant will receive 8. Explain that the participant will receive that compensation even if they withdraw from the study 9. Make it clear that participants can quit the study at any point

Sample Debriefing Form Debriefing Form First and foremost, thank you for participating in our study. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have provided. As you have just experienced, the study involved reading and categorizing Welsh and English words. The words in both languages differed in the number of similar words they have in the other language by changing just one letter. This measure is called neighborhood density. For example, the English word BARN has 15 neighbors in Welsh (for example, BARF, CARN), whereas the word FEAR has none. Similarly, the Welsh word BOST has 13 neighbors in English (e.g., BEST), whereas the word CAER has none. In this experiment, 50% of the Welsh words had a high number of neighbors in English and 50% had a low number of neighbors. Similarly, 50% of the English words had a high number of neighbors in Welsh and 50% had a low number of neighbors. Previous research has shown that when reading in one language, fluent bilinguals automatically and unconsciously activate words from the other language. For example, brain waves are more negative when the words in one language have a high number of neighbors in the other language compared to words with a low number of neighbors. Research so far has focused on proficient late bilinguals. Here, we compare late and early bilinguals to assess whether brain organization for processes involved in word recognition and the interaction between the two languages depend on when an individual learns the second language. Therefore, these data will provide valuable information on how the brain organizes words from two different languages and whether this organization depends on when the second language is learned. Again, your participation in this study is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time and effort. Please keep all information regarding this experiment confidential, and do not share this document with anyone else. If you have any questions or are interested in the final results of the study, please feel free to contact Dr. Giordana Grossi at

What Information Must Be Provided to Subjects? The Debriefing Checklist Include: 1. Purpose of the research 2. Your hypotheses What you expect to find 3. Identify how deception was used in your study What subjects were led to believe contrasted with reality 4. Reasons for deception 5. Whom to contact for answers to questions and how to contact them: Include contact information for you as the researcher A student must include contact information for an advisor as well

Deception When you describe what the study is about... Make sure not to disclose too much (avoid sensitization) Be general

Questions Do informed consents affect results? Do they trigger unfounded negative feelings about the study?

Who should determine what is ethical? IRB Scientific Community Media Individuals Countries More examples? Ethics

Questions?