DOCSLIB.ORG

Controversial Psychological Research Methods and Their Influence on the Development of Formal Ethical Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Controversial Psychological Research Methods and Their Influence on the Development of Formal Ethical Guidelines Youngpeter, K. (2008). Controversial psychological research methods and their influence on the development of formal ethical guidelines. Student Journal of Psychological Science, 1(1), 4-12. Controversial Psychological Research Methods and Their Influence on the Development of Formal Ethical Guidelines Katie Youngpeter Metropolitan State College of Denver Abstract: Presently, researchers must give special ethical concerns to monitor participant treatment when they are utilizing controversial research methods. Such methods include, but are not limited to deception, coercion, and potentially inducing psychological harm. Throughout the course of the history of psychology as a science, a number of different ethical guidelines have been developed and employed in a variety of ways. The interest in developing guidelines for psychological research was stimulated by several studies, particularly Watson and Raynor’s research on Little Albert (1920), Milgram’s interest in obedience (1963; 1964), Humphrey’s naturalistic observations of tearooms (1973), and Zimbardo and colleague’s prison experiment (1973). Each of these studies has in part contributed to the current ethical standards for psychology research on humans in the United States. Current APA guidelines are briefly discussed. Whenever research involves human development of formal ethical codes for participants, researchers must give psychological research (Kimmel, 1996), special ethical concerns to monitor and there were several important participant treatment. In general, most studies that brought these issues to people would not support the idea of light (e.g., Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, suppressing an individual’s civil rights 1973; Humphreys, 1975; Milgram, for the sake of expanding our 1963; Watson & Rayner, 1920). These knowledge of human nature; on the studies are important to review and other hand, researchers often are appreciate because each has ultimately unable to predict the results of their contributed, in part, to the current manipulations, thereby making it guidelines of the American unreasonable to reprimand them on the Psychological Association (see APA, basis of their findings alone. Moreover, 2002) researchers must be particularly Ethics is the study of proper action cautious when using deception, (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). Changes coercion, and potential psychological in research interests over the past harm, as well as consider voluntary several decades have substantially participation and overall confidentiality. influenced the evolution of ethical Indeed, the aforementioned factors were standards, guidelines and codes for the main focal points for the research within the field of psychology. K. Youngpeter 5 Compared to other sciences, psychology the major focus in his famous study on is a relatively new field, so, “Little Albert” was how human understandably, the concern for emotional responses are created creating guidelines for researchers is (Watson & Rayner, 1920). Watson and also a novel enterprise (Gravetter & Rayner hypothesized that fear could be Forzano, 2006; Kimmel, 1996). conditioned in a baby, which suggested However, the general public, as well as that fear of specific objects or events researchers, tended to be unconcerned was not innate and that fears were not with the creation of formal ethical codes the results of adverse sexual for this field until the growing experiences (the popular Freudian popularity of behaviorist studies on theory at the time [Watson & Rayner, people, and later, socio-psychological 1920]). Watson and Rayner created an research. In particular, researchers had experimental method to test this, and little regard for the ethics revolving therein laid the ethical concerns with around how behavioral traits emerge in their work. uncomfortable situations (Haney et al., Using Albert, an 11-month-old boy 1973; Humphreys, 1975; Milgram, with a very relaxed demeanor, Watson 1963; Watson & Rayner, 1920). and Rayner (1920) attempted to create During psychology’s infancy, a novel fear of a white rat. Albert researchers were indifferent toward initially was not afraid of the rat, and ethics because they often based their indeed was very curious about it; but, studies on introspection rather than as soon as Albert touched the animal, social manipulations (Hergenhahn, Watson hit a large metal bar which 2001). Initially, psychophysics gained yielded a loud, unpleasant noise that popularity in the early 1900s and was was found beforehand to upset the characterized by the simple recording of baby. It took only seven rat-sound participant responses after exposing pairings for the rat alone to elicit an them to various types of stimuli, such extreme response in the child, as colored lights or slight pricks on the characterized by withdrawal and crying. skin (Hergenhahn, 2001). While The association persisted strongly for participants may not have known what one week, and Albert was again tested exactly was being studied, they were after about one month – the fear was aware that they were participating in still present, albeit somewhat weaker. research, communicated directly with The response had also generalized the researcher about their experiences, toward other white, furry objects, and usually did not have to be including a rabbit, dog, fur coat and concerned about the possibility of Santa mask. However, Albert was still feeling humiliated, embarrassed, or content to interact with dissimilar otherwise harmed due to the tests that objects such as toy blocks while in the were administered to them laboratory environment (Watson & (Hergenhahn, 2001). Rayner, 1920). With the rise of behaviorism in the Watson and Rayner’s (1920) 1920s came a new interest in methodologies helped facilitate the environmental factors and their growing concern for participant influence on behaviors. For example, a wellbeing, particularly for those unable researcher may have been curious to give consent or even assent, such as about how reinforcement and infants (Baumrind, 1964; Fischer, punishment could respectively lead to 2005). Despite the child’s obvious likes and dislikes (Hergenhahn, 2001). discomfort, Watson and Rayner Watson was one such researcher, and continued with the study. To make Student Journal of Psychological Science 6 matters even more controversial, researchers were tried for their crimes Watson and Rayner failed to conduct in Nuremberg, Germany (Fischer, the final part of the experiment, which 2005). involved extinguishing the fear, because The Nuremberg Code (Kimmel, Albert’s mother had to move. Watson 1996) was created as a set of guidelines and Rayner responded to this specifically for researchers in the unfortunate outcome by assuring the biomedical field, but psychologists reader that Albert, like all babies, adopted it as their own because the would have likely developed a similar Nuremberg Code focuses on the association anyway out in the “rough treatment of live participants (Kimmel, and tumble” world (Watson & Rayner, 1996). Moreover, during the 1950s, 1920, p. 2). While fearing fuzzy, white there was a rising interest in how objects may not have adversely impact people interact with others, as well as Albert’s life, critics began to feel a rising how they respond in various social concern about experimenters possibly situations. This interest was stemmed instilling serious, permanent by the widespread adoption of psychological damage in the very people Functionalism, a school of thought they are relying on for their data which emphasized studying cognitive (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). Despite processes (Hergenhahn, 2001). Because these criticisms of his research, these processes are almost always however, the APA offered Watson high influenced by our environment, praise in 1957 for revolutionizing psychologists began asking questions modern psychology (Skinner, 1960). about what factors are important in Although most psychologists guiding behaviors. This resulted in an assumed that all researchers would be interest in ethics for this field because, reasonably responsible for their as previously mentioned, methods such participants’ wellbeing (Gravetter & as deception can be unclear in terms of Forzano, 2006), there were important whether or not they harm participants exceptions in the 1940s during World (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006; Kimmel, War II. These war crimes, isolated to 1996). If anything, social psychologists Germany and Japan, involved had to be diligent in their use of disturbing manipulations of prisoners informed consent and debriefing that left them severely psychologically procedures. or physically damaged or even resulting After the development of the in death (Fischer, 2005). Under normal Nuremberg Code, almost all circumstances, one would hope that a psychologists accepted and followed its researcher would do all possible to keep guidelines, but it was nonetheless his participants comfortable – if informal and did not necessarily dictate anything to not instill any how a study should be conducted discouragement toward research. War (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006; Kimmel, crimes are unique, however, because 1996). It was not until the late 1960s the participants are viewed as that all institutions that conducted subhuman and thus treated as such to funded research on humans were minimize feelings of guilt (Fischer, required to have an Institutional Review 2005). While these crimes tended to Board (IRB; Pope, 1992) and not until involve physiological interests rather 1978 that a set of guidelines, called the than
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing Non-Consensual Human Experimentation During the War on Terror
    ACEVES_FINAL(DO NOT DELETE) 11/26/2018 9:05 AM INTERROGATION OR EXPERIMENTATION? ASSESSING NON-CONSENSUAL HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION DURING THE WAR ON TERROR WILLIAM J. ACEVES* The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation has long been considered sacrosanct. It traces its legal roots to the Nuremberg trials although the ethical foundations dig much deeper. It prohibits all forms of medical and scientific experimentation on non-consenting individuals. The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation is now well established in both national and international law. Despite its status as a fundamental and non-derogable norm, the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation was called into question during the War on Terror by the CIA’s treatment of “high-value detainees.” Seeking to acquire actionable intelligence, the CIA tested the “theory of learned helplessness” on these detainees by subjecting them to a series of enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article revisits the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation to determine whether the CIA’s treatment of detainees violated international law. It examines the historical record that gave rise to the prohibition and its eventual codification in international law. It then considers the application of this norm to the CIA’s treatment of high-value detainees by examining Salim v. Mitchell, a lawsuit brought by detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article concludes that the CIA breached the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation when it conducted systematic studies on these detainees to validate the theory of learned helplessness. Copyright © 2018 William J. Aceves *Dean Steven R. Smith Professor of Law at California Western School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIT 3 QUASI EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Factorial Design
    UNIT 3 QUASI EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Factorial Design Structure 3.0 Introduction 3.1 Objectives 3.2 Meaning of Quasi Experimental Design 3.3 Difference Between Quasi Experimental Design and True Experimental Design 3.4 Types of Quasi Experimental Design 3.4.1 Non-Equivalent Group Posttest only Design 3.4.2 Non-Equivalent Control Group Design 3.4.3 The Separate Pretest-post Test Sample Design 3.4.4 The Double Pretest Design 3.4.5 The Switching Replications Design 3.4.6 Mixed Factorial Design 3.4.7 Interrupted Time Series Design 3.4.8 Multiple Time Series Design 3.4.9 Repeated Treatment Design 3.4.10 Counter Balanced Design 3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Quasi Experimental Design 3.6 Let Us Sum Up 3.7 Unit End Questions 3.8 Glossary 3.9 Suggested Readings 3.0 INTRODUCTION For most of the history of scientific psychology, it has been accepted that experimental research, with its twin assets of random assignment and manipulation of the independent variable by the researcher, is the ideal method for psychological research. Some researchers believe this so strongly that they avoid studying important questions about human personality, sex differences in behaviour, and other subjects that do not lend themselves to experimental research. A few decades ago researchers in psychology were interested in applied psychology issues conducting research on how students learnt in school, how social factors influenced the behaviour of an individual, how to motivate factory workers to perform at a higher level etc. These research questions cannot be answered by lab experiments as one has to go to the field and the real life situation like the classroom etc., to find answers to the research issues mentioned above.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Methods in Social Psychology 2 Antony S.R
    9781405124003_4_002.qxd 10/31/07 2:54 PM Page 20 Research Methods in Social Psychology 2 Antony S.R. Manstead KEY CONCEPTS confederate confounding construct construct validity control group convergent validity cover story debriefing demand characteristics dependent variable discourse analysis experiment experimental group experimental scenario experimenter expectancy effects external validity factorial experiment field experiment Hawthorne effect hypothesis implicit measures independent variable interaction effect interaction process analysis (IPA) internal validity Internet experiments main effect manipulation check mediating variable meta-analysis 9781405124003_4_002.qxd 10/31/07 2:54 PM Page 21 one-shot case study operationalization participant observation post-experimental enquiry CHAPTER OUTLINE post-test only control group design quasi-experiment This chapter provides an overview of research methods in social psychology, from the develop- quota sample random allocation ment of theory to the collection of data. After describing three quantitative research strategies reactivity (survey research, experiments and quasi-experiments), the chapter briefly discusses qualitative reliability approaches, focusing on discourse analysis. There follows a description of the key elements of sampling experiments and of threats to validity in experimental research, and a discussion of problems simple random sample with experimental research in social psychology. The final section of the chapter contains a social desirability description of three methods of data collection (observation, self-report and implicit measures). survey research theory triangulation true randomized experiment unobtrusive measures validity variable Introduction How do social psychologists develop their theories? How do social psychologists go about testing their theories? Methods provide a means of translating a researcher’s ideas into actions. These ideas usually revolve around one or more questions about a phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Phrecord Summer 2017
    Physicians for Human Rights PHRecord Summer 2017 You Helped Us Tell the Truth about What Killed the People of Khan Sheikhoun When the bombs descended upon the victims, many of them children. “It looked chemical attack occur. We know that PHR’s Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun in the like people were struggling against death. deep bench and known voice will have an early hours of April 4, Physicians for They were resisting death.” impact – that by exposing these war crimes, Human Rights’ Syria team sprang into by calling out the perpetrators, and by action. As hundreds of Syrian men, PHR’s medical experts analyzed first-hand drawing the world’s attention when human women, and children were overwhelmed reports from medical personnel on the rights are so cruelly violated, we can help by an apparent chemical weapons attack ground and video and photographic deter abuses and ensure justice in the future. and hospitals were overrun with the dying, documentation of victims. Within hours, Thank you for making that possible. PHR’s researchers quickly reached out PHR was able to state that the attack had to our network of health and emergency all the hallmarks of an assault with a nerve workers across Idlib Governorate to try to agent – and we were cited again and again understand what was happening. in the global media. Bashar, a first responder with the Syrian Your backing has enabled PHR to develop Civil Defense – the White Helmets – told a deep expertise in chemical weapons, PHR researcher Racha Mouawieh that the supported our extensive documentation attack was unlike anything he had ever of attacks on health care, and nurtured our encountered.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissemination of Vaccine Misinformation on Twitter and Its Countermeasures
    Dissertation Dissemination of Vaccine Misinformation on Twitter and Its Countermeasures Christine Chen This document was submitted as a dissertation in March 2021 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of Luke Matthews (Chair), Sarah Nowak and Jeremy Miles. The external reader was Jennifer Golbeck. This dissertation was generously supported by the Anne and James Rothenberg Dissertation Award. PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL For more information on this publication, visit http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSDA1332-1.html Published 2021 by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. is a registered trademarK Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademarK(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is reQuired from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help maKe communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND MaKe a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Abstract Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases have continued to affect many parts of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuremberg Code: Why It’S Important
    UC DAVIS OFFICE OF RESEARCH Nuremberg Code: Why it’s Important Miles McFann IRB Administration Outreach and Training Nuremberg Trial 1946 -1947: “Doctors’ Trial” 23 defendants • 22 men • 1 woman 16 convictions • 9 prison sentences • 7 death sentences War Crimes: • Performing medical experimentation without subjects consent • Experimentation led to permanent disfigurement, disability, and/or death • Experimentation conducted on vulnerable populations 2 Nuremberg Trial (cont.) The Hippocratic Oath on Trial? 3 Nuremberg Code 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. • Ethical Principal: Respect for Persons 2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence 3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence 4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence 4 Nuremberg Code 5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence, Justice 6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. • Ethical Principal: Beneficence 7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
    [Show full text]
  • When Human Experimentation Is Criminal L
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 99 Article 3 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2008 When Human Experimentation is Criminal L. Song Richardson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation L. Song Richardson, When Human Experimentation is Criminal, 99 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 89 (2008-2009) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/09/9901-0089 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 99, No. I Copyright 0 2009 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. WHEN HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION IS CRIMINAL L. SONG RICHARDSON* Medical researchers engaged in human experimentation commit criminal acts seemingly without consequence. Whereas other actors who violate bodily integrity and autonomy are routinely penalized with convictions for assault, fraud, and homicide, researchers escape criminal punishment. This Article begins to scrutinize this undercriminalization phenomenon and provides a framework for understandingwhy researchers are not prosecuted for their crimes. It argues that their exalted social status, combined with the perceived social benefit of their research, immunizes them from use of the criminal sanction. Whether these constitute sufficient grounds to give researchers a pass from punishment is a significant question because the state's failure to act creates expressive harms. It displays attitudes towards victims and perpetrators that negatively affect the values of autonomy and dignity in medical research.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Human Research Participants NIH Office of Extramural Research Introduction
    Protecting Human Research Participants NIH Office of Extramural Research Introduction Research with human subjects can occasionally result in a dilemma for investigators. When the goals of the research are designed to make major contributions to a field, such as improving the understanding of a disease process or determining the efficacy of an intervention, investigators may perceive the outcomes of their studies to be more important than providing protections for individual participants in the research. Although it is understandable to focus on goals, our society values the rights and welfare of individuals. It is not considered ethical behavior to use individuals solely as means to an end. The importance of demonstrating respect for research participants is reflected in the principles used to define ethical research and the regulations, policies, and guidance that describe the implementation of those principles. Who? This course is intended for use by individuals involved in the design and/or conduct of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded human subjects research. What? This course is designed to prepare investigators involved in the design and/or conduct of research involving human subjects to understand their obligations to protect the rights and welfare of subjects in research. The course material presents basic concepts, principles, and issues related to the protection of research participants. Why? As a part of NIH's commitment to the protection of human subjects and its response to Federal mandates for increased emphasis on protection for human subjects in research, the NIH Office of Extramural Research released a policy on Required Education in the Protection of Human Research Participants in June 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Ethical Guidelines in Indian Biobanking
    Revised Ethical Guidelines In Indian Biobanking: Do We Need To Downregulate the Proposed Frameworks? Juhi Tayal1, Anurag Mehta2 and Alok Kumar1 1 Biorepository, Department of Research, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, India 2 Department of Laboratory Sciences and Molecular Diagnostics, RGCI&RC, India 1,2 Sec-5,Rohini, New Delhi, India-110085 Email: [email protected]/ [email protected] BACKGROUND Guideline for Indian Biobanks ABSTRACT • Clinical biobanks are gaining popularity in India and are also revolutionizing research. Indian • Biomedical research in India has revolutionized with the changing times. This Council for Medical Research(ICMR),Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and paradigm shift has not only bought greater complexities but also greater Department of Biotechnology (DBT) are the major agencies supporting research in India. The ICMR responsibilities for policy makers ,researchers and stakeholders. The is the national organization and also the apex body for developing ethical frameworks and guidelines advancement is not limited to basic research or clinical research ,it has now and also enforcing them. The ICMR issued the Policy Statement on Ethical Considerations Involved taken a foothold into Digital imaging and Artificial intelligence platforms as in Research on Human Subjects in 1980. Due to rapid advancement in biomedical sciences new well. ethical dimensions have emerged and nesseciated the updation of these guidelines time and again in • The aim of policy makers worldover was to safeguard four basic ethical 2000,2003, 2013 and very recently in 2017. The revision has introduced many new sections and principles for research involving human subjects: respect for persons, also revamped the existing sections .A new Section 11 was dedicated to Biological materials, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Issues in Psychology February 11, 2015
    Ethical Issues in Psychology http://psychyogi.org/ethical-issues-in-psychology/ February 11, 2015 Whether you are involved in teaching, practice or research, ethical issues in psychology should be at the forefront of everything that you do. Knowing the obvious and not so obvious ethical pitfalls is essential, this article will help remind you of some of the issues you may come up against. As with any science, psychology relies on the collection of research to support theories. As the study of the mind and behaviour, psychology requires certain ethical guidelines when dealing with people as subjects. When we talk about ‘ethical issues’ in psychology, we are referring to ideas and topics that invoke our moral responsibility. Ethical practices in psychology have changed over time. In 1947, at the end of the Second World War, research ethics principles for human experimentation known as the Nuremberg Code were set as a result of human experiments in concentration camps. Combined with the Declaration of Geneva (1948), these principles became the Declaration of Helsinki, the current cornerstone document on human research ethics. Today, ethical guidelines are published by the British Psychological Society in the United Kingdom and the American Psychological Association in the United States. The purpose of these representative bodies is to protect research subjects and researchers alike. Whilst there are differences in the details between the two sets of guidelines, they share many important features. Here are some examples of ethical issues in psychology. Informed Consent This is one of the most important issues in psychological research. It is important to remember that it breaks down not only to ‘consent’ (permission) but, more importantly, ‘informed’ (having/showing knowledge).
    [Show full text]
  • Research Methods in Social Psychology 2 Antony S.R
    9781405124003_4_002.qxd 10/31/07 2:54 PM Page 20 Research Methods in Social Psychology 2 Antony S.R. Manstead KEY CONCEPTS confederate confounding construct construct validity control group convergent validity cover story debriefing demand characteristics dependent variable discourse analysis experiment experimental group experimental scenario experimenter expectancy effects external validity factorial experiment field experiment Hawthorne effect hypothesis implicit measures independent variable interaction effect interaction process analysis (IPA) internal validity Internet experiments main effect manipulation check mediating variable meta-analysis 9781405124003_4_002.qxd 10/31/07 2:54 PM Page 21 one-shot case study operationalization participant observation post-experimental enquiry CHAPTER OUTLINE post-test only control group design quasi-experiment This chapter provides an overview of research methods in social psychology, from the develop- quota sample random allocation ment of theory to the collection of data. After describing three quantitative research strategies reactivity (survey research, experiments and quasi-experiments), the chapter briefly discusses qualitative reliability approaches, focusing on discourse analysis. There follows a description of the key elements of sampling experiments and of threats to validity in experimental research, and a discussion of problems simple random sample with experimental research in social psychology. The final section of the chapter contains a social desirability description of three methods of data collection (observation, self-report and implicit measures). survey research theory triangulation true randomized experiment unobtrusive measures validity variable Introduction How do social psychologists develop their theories? How do social psychologists go about testing their theories? Methods provide a means of translating a researcher’s ideas into actions. These ideas usually revolve around one or more questions about a phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions About the IRB
    Frequently Asked Questions about the IRB Researchers often have questions about what the IRB is, what it does, and why their research must be reviewed by the IRB. This page contains a list of the most commonly-asked questions about this topic. What is human subjects research? Federal regulations define human subjects research as a systematic investigation designed to develop generalizable knowledge, and which involves the collection of data from or about living human beings. Why does research on human subjects need a special review process? There have been many research projects that were conducted despite being unethical, hazardous, or even cruel. These projects caused severe harm to -- or even killed -- the people who served as their subjects. Some of the more notorious unethical research projects include: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932 to 1972) used indigent and poorly educated Black sharecroppers in Alabama to track the natural history of untreated syphilis infections. The participants did not have any meaningful understanding of their illness and did not understand that they were participating in research that was specifically designed to track the course of the disease, rather than cure it. The Willowbrook Hepatitis Study (1950s), in which retarded children institutionalized at the Willowbrook State School in New York were infected with hepatitis to track the transmission and spread of the disease. Atrocities committed upon the inmates of Nazi concentration camps during World War II by Dr. Josef Mengele and others under the guise of medical research. The testing of ionizing radionuclides on children and young adults without their knowledge or consent by the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Department of Energy during the Cold War.
    [Show full text]