On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 06:58:56 -0800, Jim Clark wrote: > "Mike Palij" <[email protected]> 01-Mar-11 7:35 AM >>> >>On Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:58:54 -0600, Jim Clark wrote: >>> Hi >>> What are the grounds for thinking that any of this is relevant to the >>>vast majority of psychological or other social science research? >> >>The vagueness and lack of specificity of the question at first made >>think that if (a) the writer is not a researcher and/or (b) not doing >>research in the U.S., then he was unaware of the U.S. federal >>requirement to abide by the guidelines provided by the U.S. >>Dept of Health and Human Service and its Office for Human >>Research Protections. Any institution that receives federal funding, >>I believe, is required to have an ethics in research course, such as >>this model course: >> http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/montana_round1/research_ethics.html > >Jim Clark responded: >I guess "this" was too vague as much in your subsequent tutorial on the ethics >industry had little to do with your original post, which focused on the harm >being done in some cases of medical research.
I actually don't understand what you are saying here. The original post which summarized the AP post on unethical research provided a variety of examples of where deception, lack of informed consent, exploitation of vulnerable populations, conduct of research with no clear benefit either to the participant or in the production of new, useful knowledge, and a general disregard to the rights of the participants (among other things) occurred. These are problems that apply to all research involving humans and research. Are you saying that these issues apply only to medical research? >>MIke continues: >>Then again, perhaps I was wrong in my initial interpretation, that is, the >>person is a researcher and/or knowledgeable about research but the focus of >>his comments are elsewhere but where? And then Annette Taylor posted >>a response to which Jim Clark posted a response which clarifies some >>things. Quoting from his response: >> >>|My concern would be that we are teaching students that psychological >>|research needs just as much oversight as medical research, which is >>|certainly not a universal view among psychologists and other social >>scientists. >> >>To which I say, perhaps that is a view among some psychologists and >>social scientists but, on the basis of my experience I think this is a naive >>view. If someone is just having human subjects learn lists of nonsense >>syllables to see how much they can retain, then I think that there is little >>risk to the subject (outside of a certain amount of boredom). But this >>is not the type of research that is being promoted, funded, or advocated >>for in a discipline where the new interpretative frame is that psychology >>is concerned primarily with affective and cognitive neuroscience. >>If anything, as psychology continues to promote itself as being a part of >>neuroscience, the issues of medical research become increasingly relevant. > >Jim Clark responded >At least two of the links were to articles in APA journals on the dangers of >IRBs, but I guess by naive authors. It would be helpful if you linked to the specific documents you're referring to, otherwise you risk giving the appearance of not really caring that much about the issue. That being said, are there problems with IRBs? I admit "yes". But now we have a situation of what kind of error are more comfortable committing: risking potential harm to participants/subjects or making things easier for the researcher at potential costs to participants. >And surely there are innumerable other >topics investigated by psychologists that are as innocuous as learning >nonsense >syllables? I am making an inference here but I am guessing that you define "harm" as only actually bodily damage that a person might experience while receiving a treatment? Though this should be concern it is not the only way in which harm can be done; harm can also be done through the lack of informed consent, deception, disrespect of the participant/subjects, and so on. Perhaps it is worthwhile to identify the key points of the Belmont Report which serves as one basis for federal regulations: (a) Respect for persons (b) Beneficence (protect the well-being of participants) (c) Justice Are you really saying these are not relevant to psychological and social science research? I would say that the Stanford prison experiment was not "invasive" but in addition to violating the Belmont principles had the potential for greater damage than, say, being infected with a flu virus in a research study on flu vaccines. >And if a psychologist does engage in "medical" or like invasive >work, then I would see need for common ethics procedures. By this do you mean that the Belmont principles are not relevant to psychological research? >Also, I referred to "social scientists" in general, not just psychologists. >The medical model for ethics is being applied to a huge spectrum of >non-medical research. That may be true but what specifically are you against? The use of informed consent? Unlimited use of deception? No cost-benefit analysis of the research (even useless and pointless research should be allowed)? What exactly are you talking about? >>Mike goes on: >>As an experimental psychology whose primary training was in cognitive >>psychology but with a specialty in research methods and data analysis, >>I have worked in psychiatric research on the biological basis of anxiety >>disorders, behavioral studies of hyperactivity, autism, and conduct >>disorder as well as substance abuse research which focused on cocaine >>abuse and its treatment both with medication and cognitive-behavioral >>therapy -- I tried to get in some good old-fashioned experimental research >>on human memory in there whenever I could. The point is that a psychologist >>cannot predict where he or she might wind up and what kind of research >>(or clinically oriented work) they might do. In any case, I think it is >>important to know and understand the history and role of ethics in research, >>especially medical research because federal law concerning ethical conduct >>is most concerned with this type of research (we season the presentation of >>medical research with a little bit of Milgram, Zimbardo, DiCaro, Breuning, >>and others for those with a taste for psychology). Of course, YMMV. > >Jim Clark responded: >As I said, ethical issues from medicine are being applied where they have >little relevance, hence the "seasoning" with examples from psychology, Again, you have failed to identify which ethical "issues" or principles from medicine are not relevant to psychological and social science research. Please start by showing how the principles proposed in the Belmont are irrelevant to research in this area. >and indeed examples that are debatable as to whether they actually put >people at more risk of harm than they would experience in their everyday >lives. And to associate these psychological studies with examples of >medical research that caused harm or put people unwittingly at risk of harm >runs the risk (virtually guarantees?) that students will come to view much >psychological research (and economic research with humans, and political >science research, and journalism, ....) as of the same ilk. I think it is a mistake to understate the damage that psychological and social science research can do if ethical principles like those in the Belmont report are ignored. Medical research has its own specific costs and benefits while psychological and social sciences have its own. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=9092 or send a blank email to leave-9092-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
