Research method ethics assignment

Posted: May 5th, 2020

Research method ethics assignment:
You must write an APA formatted, discussion paper based on the information in this module and the article on 5 principles of research ethics listed at this website http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan03/principles.aspx By the end of this module, you should be able to understand:
What should you be considerate of regarding ethics in social science research?
What are some historical examples of unethical research studies?
What safeguards are in place for participants today?

Ethics in the social sciences:
Because research in the Social Sciences involves people, strict safeguards must be in place to protect participants in all ways. The researcher must take responsibility for the participants and ensure as little harm as possible. Oftentimes people wonder why there are so many additional layers of protection for animals and children compared to adult humans. The reason is that animals and children are either unable to or reluctant to communicate their inner feelings during a research study. An adult human is considered to be more capable of understanding what they are agreeing to with participation and research and can withdraw from the study later.
In general, researchers in the social sciences seek to:
1)ensure confidentiality- an individual’s mere participation in a study should be kept confidential, let alone their results.
2)provide anonymity- as much as possible, only their data provided should be used. There should be disassociation from any personal identifying information from the study.
3)obtain informed consent- participants have to not only provide consent that they agree to participate, but they should be informed of the potential repercussions and any negative consequences of participation.
4)provide voluntary participation- participants cannot be coerced into participation.
Prior to the 1950s, researchers employed their own ethical standards regarding what they felt was acceptable. Think of it as akin to someone who writes on a blog on the internet. There may be minor repercussions of writing things that cross the line, but there is not an “internet police” to issue fines or sanctions for the author going too far. But following WW2, this “wild, wild west” of research ethics changed.
Historical examples that have influenced ethics in research today:
Nuremberg Nazi trials

The most infamous, and the most egregious example of research going too far was revealed publicly during the Nuremberg trials where Nazi scientists were tried for their crimes. Many of these experiments were done on prisoners in concentration camps and considered so distasteful, it caused the formation of the Nuremberg Code of Ethics that established a baseline for what would be considered acceptable for research in the future. Some of the more specific examples involved subjecting prisoners to large doses of x-rays to sterilize them without their knowledge, creating wounds and experimenting with the chemical sulfonamide to stop gangrene, creating artificial conjoined twins (think human centipede…), and immersing subjects in various degrees of freezing water. There were many other experiments, strangely only the cold-water immersion experiments produced anything of value for providing knowledge on how long people can survive in various cold temperatures of water before succumbing to hypothermia. The rest are not only bad for crossing the line of human decency, but also for their poor research methods (you don’t do things to subjects just to see what happens).
Unit 731 of Imperial Japan

Although these experiments were also carried out during WW2, much of what the Unit 731 scientists was not known to the public until recently. Japanese scientists experimented on 250,000 civilians or POWs, many of them for weapons testing or disease exposure. Participants were purposefully referred to as “logs” as a way to disassociate the science personnel from the humanity of their subjects in order to do more drastic behaviors against them. These “logs” were then subjected to diseases like the plague, cholera, smallpox, syphilis, and anthrax. Weapons testing involved strapping people at various distances from detonated explosives or flamethrowers to test their effectiveness. In contrast to the Nazi’s careful record-keeping, much of the data and details of the experiments were lost or destroyed.
The Tuskegee Institute Syphilis Study

In the U.S., the most infamous unethical science experiment is that of the Tuskegee Institute syphilis study, which has become an important case study for researchers. Low-income, rural, black farmers near Alabama with syphilis were recruited as part of at study of the U.S. Public Health Service and further developed by the Tuskegee Institute. They were told they had “bad blood” and given free health care and meals in exchange for participation while the progression and spread of the disease was monitored. When they were drafted for WW2, they were prevented from receiving Penicillin treatment and enlisting so that the study could continue. Today, the Tuskegee Institute is the site of a Bioethics center.
Thalidomide and pregnant women

Thalidomide was marketed as a drug used to combat morning sickness for pregnant women in the late 1950s. Unfortunately, it result in many children being born with severe birth defects, if they even survived to birth. This directly led to the exclusion of young women from clinical drug trials for fears of unintentionally causing similar results in new experimental drugs. It also led to tighter regulation of drugs and today, thalidomide is considered a safe drug used to combat cancer, while young women are able to participate in clinical drug trials again (with strict policies).
The Milgram shock experiment

Although the Milgram shock experiment wasn’t considered unethical at the time, by today’s standards it would be for how much distress it caused participants. You can watch a video clip of it here:
Nobody in the experiment was actually receiving any shocks of electricity. However, the amount of psychological stress the participant “learners” experienced as a result of thinking they had just killed somebody was enough for many of them to have breakdowns. Today, corrective experiences must be provided immediately, in addition to the amount of stress participants should be subjected to.
The Tearoom Trade

The last example we will cover is the Tearoom Trade study done in the early 1970s. The researcher posed as what’s called a “watchqueen” for people he was collecting information on. At the time and in his area of research, homosexual sex was often engaged in at public restrooms while a watchqueen waited outside to alert them if someone was coming. The researcher then followed the subjects to their homes, recorded their license plate numbers, and falsely presented himself as a medical practitioner, rather than telling them he was actually collecting personal information that they had not consented to. Today, participants cannot be duped, especially when important personal information is being used for research purposes.
Considerations for participants:
You may have noticed some of these violations of the rights for participants mentioned here (today participants is considered the proper term for people providing data in a research study). Any time you conduct a research study of your own, you must ensure that these are addressed.
Participant distress

Distress should always be minimized for participants, otherwise a corrective experience should be provided for any amount of distress. Some psychiatric evaluators believde that the extreme distress Ted Kaczynski was subjected to as a student at Harvard during purposeful stress-inducing experiments contributed to his later decline and mental breakdown towards becoming the Unabomber.
Web of deceit
This also ties into the next consideration for avoiding the web of deceit that social science was once notorious for. Deceptive studies used to be conducted so often that there was a significant loss of trust and participants either became much less forthcoming with information or refused to participate altogether. Instead, researchers should allow the participants to understand what will be required of them, what the topic of the study is, and obtain voluntary consent before they participate, in as much as it doesn’t tarnish the data collected.
Informed Consent

Participants must be fully informed about the procedures and any risk involved before they sign off on their agreement to participate and consent to provide data for analytical purposes. All studies must be done on a voluntary basis (again, the reasons why animal and child research are so tricky).
Institutional Review Boards

IRBs are set up to evaluate research proposals to protect participants before the study actually begins. Sometimes, it can take months or a year for the research proposal to be properly reviewed ahead of time since there can be so much at stake. IRBs are comprised of diverse groups of locals (affiliated with the university or part of the local community) who ensure the research is appropriate. Different areas around the country might have different ideas on what they might find objectionable (being sensitive of all groups of people).
Confidentiality

Researchers must keep identifying information of participants private. In addition to results of the study, mere participation in a study must also be kept private given the sensitivity of some topics and certain participants’ criteria for recruitment. All personally identifiable information should be dissociated from the data as much as possible.
Debriefing

At the conclusion of the study and data collection, participants must be given a report of the study’s purpose, method, and reveal any deception. Since their participation is over, the researcher is able to answer any questions the participant may have regarding the study and which condition they were in if part of an experiment. Studies generally find that participants report much less concern over privacy and deception than researchers do, yet the researchers still must be responsible for any violations or failures to follow protocol.
In summary:

Regarding ethics and to what extent researchers should try to collect accurate data of the world around us: there are not always easy answers or hardfast boundaries for what is okay or not. Instead, there are gradients of grey that yield difficult questions to balance between a society’s right to know and benefit from vs. an individual’s subjective experience. There have been many difficult conflicts regarding ethics in research in the past to look to for guidance. Many pigs were intentionally burned to various levels of intensity, so that doctors and scientists could learn proper skin grafting techniques and recovery expectations for human burn victims, which has resulted in a significant increase of their quality of life years. Thousands of primates were sacrificed so that polio vaccinations could be developed. A disease that once caused paralysis and early death, affecting nearly every family in the country, is now largely forgotten by most people as a result. The actual discussions of specific situations like these are very long and considerate, but in short, follow the guidelines listed here to look out for your participants as much as possible.

Ethics in Social Science Research

Social science research is an essential tool for understanding human behavior and social phenomena. However, because research often involves people, it is crucial to have strict ethical safeguards in place to protect participants from harm. Researchers have a responsibility to ensure that their research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. This paper discusses the principles of research ethics, historical examples of unethical research, and current safeguards in place for participants.

Principles of Research Ethics

The principles of research ethics are designed to protect participants in social science research. The American Psychological Association (APA) has established five principles of research ethics that researchers should follow when conducting research: informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, voluntary participation, and minimizing harm.

Informed consent requires that participants are fully informed about the nature of the research and the potential risks and benefits of participation. Participants must be given the opportunity to ask questions and must provide their consent to participate voluntarily.

Confidentiality refers to the protection of participants’ personal information. Researchers must take steps to ensure that participants’ information is kept confidential and not shared with unauthorized individuals.

Anonymity involves the use of pseudonyms or other means to protect participants’ identities. Researchers must ensure that participants’ identities are not revealed in any publication or presentation of research findings.

Voluntary participation requires that participants are not coerced or pressured into participating in research. Participants must be free to decline to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time.

Minimizing harm involves the obligation to prevent harm to participants and to minimize the risks associated with research. Researchers must ensure that their research does not cause physical, emotional, or psychological harm to participants.

Historical Examples of Unethical Research Studies

The history of research ethics is littered with examples of unethical research studies. Perhaps the most infamous and egregious example is the experiments conducted by Nazi scientists during World War II. Many of these experiments were conducted on prisoners in concentration camps and involved exposing participants to large doses of x-rays, creating wounds, and experimenting with chemical agents.

Another example is the experiments conducted by Unit 731 of Imperial Japan. Japanese scientists experimented on civilians and prisoners of war, exposing them to diseases like the plague, cholera, smallpox, syphilis, and anthrax. Participants were referred to as “logs” to dehumanize them and make it easier for the scientists to conduct their experiments.

The Tuskegee Institute syphilis study is another example of unethical research. Low-income, rural, black farmers in Alabama were recruited as part of a study of the U.S. Public Health Service and further developed by the Tuskegee Institute. They were told they had “bad blood” and were given free health care and meals in exchange for participation, while the progression and spread of the disease was monitored. When they were drafted for World War II, they were prevented from receiving Penicillin treatment and enlisting so that the study could continue.

Safeguards for Participants Today

Today, there are many safeguards in place to protect participants in social science research. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are responsible for reviewing research proposals and ensuring that they comply with ethical standards. IRBs are made up of experts in research ethics, as well as community members, who review research proposals to ensure that they meet ethical standards.

Researchers must also obtain informed consent from participants before conducting research. Informed consent involves providing participants with information about the research, including its purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits, and obtaining their voluntary consent to participate.

In addition, researchers must take steps to protect participants’ confidentiality and anonymity. Personal information must be kept confidential and not shared with unauthorized individuals. Participants must also be assured that their identities will not be revealed in any publication or presentation of research findings.