dennis roberts wrote:
>
> robert's comments lead me to ask: what makes research research? just
> because i say it is? or say it isn't?
It's all research. Scientific research, market research, opinion
polling, you name it.
The question is: is it considered ethical until proved otherwise, or
vice versa? The answer seems to boil down to the purpose: if it's being
done primarily for profit, political advantage, or to sell newspapers or
TV ads, then it's assumed ethical; if it's done primarily to advance
knowledge, or the test the efficacy or safety of a product, it's, by
default, assumed unethical.
Of course, "entertainment" justifies even more. An experimental
volunteer paid tens of thousands of dollars to let himself be knocked
unconscious would not be considered to have given "informed consent",
but a professional boxer? That's entertainment, that's an important
industry, and he's an adult capable of looking out for himself (even if
a bit punchy by now). And what about reality TV?
I know perfectly well why experimenters are held to stricter standards,
and I'm sure you all do too. Just sometimes the irony gets to me,
specially when something's boiling over on the stove, the phone rings,
and somebody wants to speak to Mr. Thomas ("Thomas" is my wife's
surname, not mine, and a sure sign of a nuisance call.)
-Robert Dawson
PS: Yes, I know, I've posted something a bit like this before.
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
