Download 3CMNS801_ethics

Ethics & Communication
Research
Today’s Class:
• Brief overview of history & traditions of research with human
subjects, some famous cases that influenced standards & policies
about research ethics
• current situation at SFU & in Canada (guest : Gary McCarron,
member of SFU REB)
• Presentations of readings
• Planning 2nd round of reading presentations
• Discussion of research design assignment and strategies for
planning final term paper
Historical Practices as Contexts for
Emergence of Ethical Guidelines
• History: idea of human subject protection relatively
new
• Medical & Psychological Experiments
• Examples Questionable Ethics in research
– experiment
• Milgram obedience study
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
• Zimbardo –Stanford prison experiment
– www.prisonexp.org
– Another Zimbardo link
• Tuskegee syphilis study
– www.hsc.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/apology/report.html
Links to Web Sites
• New Tri-council guidelines for ethical
treatment of human subjects (Canada)
– New guidelines
http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/
– Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada
(SSHRC) SSHRC homepage
• Office of Research Ethics at SFU
• Reading List for aboriginal research ethics
– http://www.ecdip.org/ethics/readings.htm
Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)
• Researcher’s personal &
scholarly values
• Guides to Best Practices,
– codes of ethics -professional associations
– Legislation
– Requirements of Funding
Agencies
• Even with good intentions
researchers can make
mistakes
Stanford Prison Experiment “debriefing”: One of
the most abused prisoners, #416, and the guard
known as "John Wayne", who was one of the
most abusive guards, confront each other in an
"encounter session" two months later.
Motivations for unethical research
– Career pressure
– Ego (“knowing the right answer”)
– Political agendas (ex. P. Rushton on race)
– cheaper, faster, career advancement, prestige,
etc.
– Ignorance etc…
Ethical Issues: stakeholders with
diverse frameworks
•
•
•
•
•
•
scientific community
“the subject”
individual researcher
society/the public
sponsors/funding sources
legal authorities/government
Scientific Misconduct
• research fraud
– falsification or distortion of data or methods
– fabrication
• Plagiarism such as
– presenting the ideas or words of another as one's
own
– Failure to give credit (citation plagiarism)
– SFU tutorial on plagiarism
http://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/tutorials/plagiarism-tutorial
• Violation of ethical standards
– ex. Failure to ask for informed consent, conducting research
on underage children or special populations without proper
consent…(etc.)
• Falsifying data & Suppression of findings (nonpublication of important findings)
Informed Consent Statements
(some points to cover)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
purpose & procedure of study
Potential risks and discomfort
Provisions for anonymity and confidentiality
researcher’s address and source of information
statement of voluntary nature of participation and
ability to withdraw at any time
alternative procedures
Provisions for compensation (or not)
offer to provide summary of findings
Sample form from SFU (Office of Research Ethics)
Examples of Scientific Misconduct:
Fabricating or “Fudging” Data
• Canadian Example:
– Dr. R. Chandra (Memorial University)
• Seniors’ memory and multivitamins
• Infant allergies & baby formulas
– No evidence of health benefits, no data-- BUT Chandra
held the patent on the multivitamins
• Other examples:
– http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/precollege/sci
enceclass/sectone/chapt4/cs1.aspx
– http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/precollege/sci
enceclass/sectone/chapt4/cs2.aspx
Deception & InjusticeTuskegee
syphilis study
•
•
•
•
•
“Depression-era U.S. poster advocating
early syphilis treatment. Although
treatments were available, participants in
the study did not receive them.”
http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/9716.asp
x#overview
Response: Belmont Report: respect for
persons, beneficence and justice
Deception (lies), withholding treatment,
racism?
Another website on the history of the
study
–
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Proj
ects2000/Ethics/TUSKEGEESYPHILISSTUDY.html
Other forms of scientific misconduct
• Failure to share credit
– R. Franklin and discovery of DNA
• suppression of unpopular research projects &
misuse of incomplete findings
– XYY controversy—genetic screening of newborns
• Suppression of findings
– “Love Canal”—keeping knowledge of toxic waste
site secret & putting publics in danger to protect
corporations
Ethics & Legality
Typology of Legal and Moral
Actions in Research
Ethical
Illegal
Only
Immoral
Only
Legal
Illegal
Both
Moral and
Legal
Both
Immoral
and Illegal
Unethical
Source: figure adapted from
Neuman (2000:91)
Ethical Treatment
of Research Subjects
Types of Harm
• physical harm
• psychological abuse, stress, loss of selfesteem
• legal harm
• other possible forms of harm
–
–
–
–
financial, G.P.A. , etc.
creation of inequities
denial of treatment
placebos in experimental research
Milgram obedience study
• “Illustration of the setup of
a Milgram experiment. The
experimenter (E) convinces
the subject ("Teacher" T) to
give what he believes are
painful electric shocks to
another subject, who is
actually an actor ("Learner"
L). Many subjects
continued to give shocks
despite pleas of mercy
from the actors.”
•
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milgram_Experiment_v2.png
Suggested Reading
“emasculating the victim”
Decline –’inner-directed masculinity breaks down’
• Nicholson, Ian (2011) “Shocking Masculinity. Stanley Milgram,
‘Obedience to Authority’ and the Crisis of Manhood in Cold
War America” ISIS. (June 2011) 102(2): 238-268.
Zimbardo –Stanford prison
experiment
Stanford Prison Experiment
“debriefing”: One of the
most abused prisoners,
#416, and the guard known
as "John Wayne", who was
one of the most abusive
guards, confront each other
in an "encounter session"
two months later.
•
•
www.prisonexp.org
Another Zimbardo link
•
Film clips from Quiet
Rage
Film: Quiet Rage: The Standford Prison Experiment Bennett Media Collection
BF 80.7 U62 S73 2005
Newer
Approaches Raise
More Nuanced
Concerns
•
Cultural Taboos & rights
– sharing secret or sacred
knowledge
– Owning one’s stories
•
Institutional Constraints
vs. Subject’s wishes
–
•
What if subject WANTS to
be identified?
Practical Complexities &
Political or Moral
Commitments
–
Counting Refugees
Pansy Napangardi painting a
Dreaming
Other Examples: Portrayals of Victims,
Photography of Street Life & things
• Tip Sheet on how to portray
famine victims with dignity
(Reuters)
–
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefres
ources/112669600053.html
• Photography of Street Life in
Canada
– The Duclos Affair & Quebec law
• http://www.montrealmirror.com/200
5/080405/news1.html
• Photographing architecture or
public art (national variations in
intellectual property rights)
Fatou Ousseini lies with her
malnourished one-year-old son
Alassa Galisou at an emergency
feeding clinic in the town of
Tahoua in northwestern Niger
(Reuters_
Deception and
covert observation
• formerly common practices
• Problems:
– Defies Principle of voluntary INFORMED
consent
– Potential for harm to subjects
– e.g. Laud Humphrey Tearoom Trade
– http://web.missouri.edu/~philwb/Laud.html
Who can give consent?
• Participation must be voluntary; not coerced
• Not applicable to special populations
– e.g. military personnel, students, prison inmates, mentally challenged
– not capable of giving true voluntary informed consent because:
• can’t make the decision (mental incapacity, immaturity)
• not truly “free” (could be directly or indirectly coerced, or cannot
refuse)
– for example, the military and total institutions, like prisons
• But how much information is given for
‘informed consent’ varies by type of method
– Ex. often experimental research requires deception
• Potential benefits of research must outweigh
risks
Privacy, Anonymity, Confidentiality
• privacy: a legal right (note : public vs.
private domain)--even if subject is dead
• anonymity: subjects remain nameless
& responses cannot be connected to them
(problem in small samples)
• confidentiality: subjects’ identity
may be known but not disclosed by
researcher, identity can’t be linked to
responses
Contemporary Legal Requirements &
Ethical Research?
• FOIPOP (Freedom of Information & Protection of
Privacy Act)
• Should researchers always respect confidentiality?
• Laws require reporting of information about plans to
commit illegal acts
• Challenge??: What happens when researcher’s
promises conflict with the law?
• SFU regulations—limits to protection of researchers
(reference case: assisted suicide study by SFU grad.
student):
• Russel Ogden v. SFU (c. 1994) http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/OgdenPge.htm
• Russel Ogden Decision Review (1998)
http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/ogden.htm
Ethics &
the Scientific Community:
Codes of Ethics & Other standards
• guide, control & regulate members
• protect researchers from outside pressures
• protect others from irresponsible
practitioners
• New Tri-council Policy on ‘serious
breaches’
– Tamburri, R. “Tri-council changes policy to curtail incidents of
academic fraud” Univeristy Affairs, Feb. 2012,pp 34-35 or
onlinehttp://www.universityaffairs.ca/tri-council-changespolicy-to-curtail-incidents-of-academic-fraud.aspx
Ethical Issues
related to Research Sponsors
• balancing allegiances
• “cooking” results unintentionally (the Lake
Wobegon Effect)
• biases from limits on conditions &
resources
• suppressing findings
• concealing the sponsor
How Society & Government
Shape Research
•
•
•
•
•
legislation
“politically correct” or “safe” topics
control of access to data (gatekeepers)
biases in government statistics
issues:
–
–
–
–
censorship, public opinion
national security
public good
funding priorities of government granting agencies
Ethical Debates about
Research Findings
• “models of relevance”
– no net effects, positive & negative effects,
special constituencies
• control over use of findings
• control of raw data
– especially subject information
• academic freedom
– autonomy of research
Ethics and Basic Ideas
about Science & Research
Paradigms
– Objective ?
opposed to subjective, logical, rational not arbitrary
– value free ?
amoral, neutral, not prejudiced
– unbiased ?
nonrandom error eliminated, not influenced by
personal or cultural values
Ethics & Practical Aspects of Research
Relations: Colleagues & Bosses
and the Research Process
• getting along with others as part of research
• main source of conflict: sharing recognition &
workload & resources
Common types of relationships
(university researchers)
• student-student (teamwork, study groups, classmates)
• student-professor (class relationships, research
assistantships, teaching)
• research &/or authorship teams (junior & senior
authors, questions of recognition and remuneration)
• employee/employer relationships (authorship,
remuneration,)
• sponsors/funding organizations
– Controversy about influence of corporate funders:
• U. Toronto, pharmaceutrical funding & Dr. Nancy Olivieri
– http://www.ideacityonline.com/presenters/nancy-olivieri/