dennis roberts wrote:
>
> At 01:51 PM 1/17/2003, Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> you do jest don't you ... ? since the way i read this ... i think it should
> be reversed
No, I meant what I wrote.
If a scientific researcher interviews a bunch of subjects, he or she
must prove to an ethics committee that they will not be harmed, that the
benefits outweigh the risks, that the experiment will be competently
performed and produce meaningful data, etc, etc. The burden of proof is
on the researcher - if the presentation to the ethics committee is vague
or incomplete, they won't get approval.
If a marketing researcher wants to do the same, they don't have to
prove anything: they just pick up the phone & start dialling. Ditto the
political pollster. They can ask biased questions, with a view to
changing the subject's opinions; they can refuse to divulge the nature
and purpose of the research (try asking a market researcher "who's your
client? Who wants to know this?" and see how fast they clam up); and the
onus is on anybody who objects to get an injunction. Which they won't
get...
-Robert Dawson
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
