Ethics & Communication ResearchEthics & Communication ResearchEthics & Communication ResearchEthics & Communication Research

Today’s Class:• Brief overview of history & traditions of research with human

subjects, some famous cases that influenced standards & policies about research ethics

• current situation at SFU & in Canada (guest : Gary McCarron, member of SFU REB)

• Presentations of readings• Planning 2nd round of reading presentations• Discussion of research design assignment and strategies for

planning final term paper

Historical Practices as Contexts for Historical Practices as Contexts for Emergence of Ethical GuidelinesEmergence of Ethical Guidelines

• History: idea of human subject protection relatively new

• Medical & Psychological Experiments • Examples Questionable Ethics in research

– experiment• Milgram obedience study

– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment• Zimbardo –Stanford prison experiment

– www.prisonexp.org– Another Zimbardo link

• Tuskegee syphilis study– www.hsc.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/apology/report.html

Links to Web SitesLinks to Web Sites• New Tri-council guidelines for ethical

treatment of human subjects (Canada)– New guidelines

http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/

– Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) SSHRC homepage

• Office of Research Ethics at SFU• Reading List for aboriginal research ethics– http://www.ecdip.org/ethics/readings.htm

Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)Why Be Ethical? (Motivations)• Researcher’s personal &

scholarly values• Guides to Best Practices,

– codes of ethics --professional associations

– Legislation– Requirements of Funding

Agencies• Even with good intentions

researchers can make mistakes

Stanford Prison Experiment “debriefing”: One of the most abused prisoners, #416, and the guard known as "John Wayne", who was one of the most abusive guards, confront each other in an "encounter session" two months later.

Motivations for unethical research

–Career pressure– Ego (“knowing the right answer”)–Political agendas (ex. P. Rushton on race)– cheaper, faster, career advancement,

prestige, etc.– Ignorance etc…

Ethical Issues: stakeholders with Ethical Issues: stakeholders with diverse frameworksdiverse frameworks

• scientific community• “the subject”• individual researcher• society/the public• sponsors/funding sources• legal authorities/government

Scientific MisconductScientific Misconduct• research fraud

– falsification or distortion of data or methods– fabrication

• Plagiarism such as– presenting the ideas or words of another as one's

own – Failure to give credit (citation plagiarism)– SFU tutorial on plagiarism

http://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/tutorials/plagiarism-tutorial

• Violation of ethical standards – ex. Failure to ask for informed consent, conducting research

on underage children or special populations without proper consent…(etc.)

• Falsifying data & Suppression of findings (non-publication of important findings)

Informed Consent StatementsInformed Consent Statements(some points to cover)(some points to cover)

• purpose & procedure of study• Potential risks and discomfort• Provisions for anonymity and confidentiality• researcher’s address and source of information• statement of voluntary nature of participation and

ability to withdraw at any time• alternative procedures• Provisions for compensation (or not)• offer to provide summary of findings• Sample form from SFU (Office of Research Ethics)

Examples of Scientific Misconduct: Fabricating or “Fudging” Data

• Canadian Example:– Dr. R. Chandra (Memorial University)

• Seniors’ memory and multivitamins• Infant allergies & baby formulas

– No evidence of health benefits, no data-- BUT Chandra held the patent on the multivitamins

• Other examples:– http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/precollege/sc

ienceclass/sectone/chapt4/cs1.aspx– http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/precollege/sc

ienceclass/sectone/chapt4/cs2.aspx

Deception & InjusticeTuskegee syphilis study

• “Depression-era U.S. poster advocating early syphilis treatment. Although treatments were available, participants in the study did not receive them.”

• http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/9716.aspx#overview

• Response: Belmont Report: respect for persons, beneficence and justice

• Deception (lies), withholding treatment, racism?

• Another website on the history of the study– http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/

Projects2000/Ethics/TUSKEGEESYPHILISSTUDY.html

Other forms of scientific misconduct

• Failure to share credit– R. Franklin and discovery of DNA

• suppression of unpopular research projects & misuse of incomplete findings – XYY controversy—genetic screening of newborns

• Suppression of findings– “Love Canal”—keeping knowledge of toxic waste

site secret & putting publics in danger to protect corporations

BothMoral and

Legal

IllegalOnly

ImmoralOnly

BothImmoral

and Illegal

EthicalIll

egal

Legal

Unethical Source: figure adapted fromNeuman (2000:91)

Ethics & LegalityEthics & LegalityTypology of Legal and Moral Typology of Legal and Moral

Actions in ResearchActions in Research

Ethical TreatmentEthical Treatment of Research Subjects of Research Subjects

Types of HarmTypes of Harm• physical harm• psychological abuse, stress, loss of self-

esteem• legal harm• other possible forms of harm – financial, G.P.A. , etc.– creation of inequities– denial of treatment– placebos in experimental research

Milgram obedience study• “Illustration of the setup of

a Milgram experiment. The experimenter (E) convinces the subject ("Teacher" T) to give what he believes are painful electric shocks to another subject, who is actually an actor ("Learner" L). Many subjects continued to give shocks despite pleas of mercy from the actors.”

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milgram_Experiment_v2.png

Suggested Reading

• Nicholson, Ian (2011) “Shocking Masculinity. Stanley Milgram, ‘Obedience to Authority’ and the Crisis of Manhood in Cold War America” ISIS. (June 2011) 102(2): 238-268.

“emasculating the victim” Decline –’inner-directed masculinity breaks down’

Zimbardo –Stanford prison experiment

Stanford Prison Experiment “debriefing”: One of the most abused prisoners, #416, and the guard known as "John Wayne", who was one of the most abusive guards, confront each other in an "encounter session" two months later.

• www.prisonexp.org• Another Zimbardo link• Film clips from Quiet

Rage

Film: Quiet Rage: The Standford Prison Experiment Bennett Media Collection BF 80.7 U62 S73 2005

Newer Approaches Raise

More Nuanced Concerns

• Cultural Taboos & rights – sharing secret or sacred

knowledge– Owning one’s stories

• Institutional Constraints vs. Subject’s wishes – What if subject WANTS to

be identified?• Practical Complexities &

Political or Moral Commitments – Counting Refugees

Pansy Napangardi painting a Dreaming

Other Examples: Portrayals of Victims, Photography of Street Life & things

• Tip Sheet on how to portray famine victims with dignity (Reuters)– http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/

reliefresources/112669600053.html

• Photography of Street Life in Canada– The Duclos Affair & Quebec law

• http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

• Photographing architecture or public art (national variations in intellectual property rights) Fatou Ousseini lies with her

malnourished one-year-old son Alassa Galisou at an emergency feeding clinic in the town of Tahoua in northwestern Niger (Reuters_

Deception andDeception and covert observation covert observation

• formerly common practices• Problems:–Defies Principle of voluntary INFORMED

consent–Potential for harm to subjects– e.g. Laud Humphrey Tearoom Trade– http://web.missouri.edu/~philwb/Laud.html

Who can give consent?Who can give consent?

• Participation must be voluntary; not coerced• Not applicable to special populations

– e.g. military personnel, students, prison inmates, mentally challenged– not capable of giving true voluntary informed consent because:

• can’t make the decision (mental incapacity, immaturity)• not truly “free” (could be directly or indirectly coerced, or cannot

refuse)– for example, the military and total institutions, like prisons

• But how much information is given for ‘informed consent’ varies by type of method– Ex. often experimental research requires deception

• Potential benefits of research must outweigh risks

Privacy, Anonymity, ConfidentialityPrivacy, Anonymity, Confidentiality

• privacy: a legal right (note : public vs. private domain)--even if subject is dead

• anonymity: subjects remain nameless & responses cannot be connected to them (problem in small samples)

• confidentiality: subjects’ identity may be known but not disclosed by researcher, identity can’t be linked to responses

Contemporary Legal Requirements & Ethical Research?

• FOIPOP (Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act)

• Should researchers always respect confidentiality?• Laws require reporting of information about plans to

commit illegal acts • Challenge??: What happens when researcher’s

promises conflict with the law?• SFU regulations—limits to protection of researchers

(reference case: assisted suicide study by SFU grad. student):• Russel Ogden v. SFU (c. 1994) http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/OgdenPge.htm• Russel Ogden Decision Review (1998) http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/ogden.htm

Ethics & Ethics & the Scientific Community:the Scientific Community:

Codes of Ethics & Other standardsCodes of Ethics & Other standards• guide, control & regulate members• protect researchers from outside pressures• protect others from irresponsible

practitioners• New Tri-council Policy on ‘serious breaches’

– Tamburri, R. “Tri-council changes policy to curtail incidents of academic fraud” Univeristy Affairs, Feb. 2012,pp 34-35 or onlinehttp://www.universityaffairs.ca/tri-council-changes-policy-to-curtail-incidents-of-academic-fraud.aspx

Ethical Issues Ethical Issues related to Research Sponsorsrelated to Research Sponsors

• balancing allegiances• “cooking” results unintentionally (the Lake

Wobegon Effect)• biases from limits on conditions &

resources• suppressing findings• concealing the sponsor

How Society & GovernmentHow Society & Government Shape Research Shape Research

• legislation• “politically correct” or “safe” topics• control of access to data (gatekeepers)• biases in government statistics• issues:– censorship, public opinion– national security– public good– funding priorities of government granting agencies

Ethical Debates about Ethical Debates about Research FindingsResearch Findings

• “models of relevance”– no net effects, positive & negative effects,

special constituencies• control over use of findings• control of raw data– especially subject information

• academic freedom– autonomy of research

Ethics and Basic IdeasEthics and Basic Ideas about Science & Research about Science & Research

ParadigmsParadigms– Objective ?

opposed to subjective, logical, rational not arbitrary – value free ?

amoral, neutral, not prejudiced – unbiased ?

nonrandom error eliminated, not influenced by personal or cultural values

Ethics & Practical Aspects of Research Ethics & Practical Aspects of Research Relations: Colleagues & BossesRelations: Colleagues & Bosses

and the Research Process and the Research Process

• getting along with others as part of research• main source of conflict: sharing recognition &

workload & resources

Common types of relationshipsCommon types of relationships (university researchers) (university researchers)

• student-student (teamwork, study groups, classmates)• student-professor (class relationships, research

assistantships, teaching)• research &/or authorship teams (junior & senior

authors, questions of recognition and remuneration)• employee/employer relationships (authorship,

remuneration,)• sponsors/funding organizations

– Controversy about influence of corporate funders:• U. Toronto, pharmaceutrical funding & Dr. Nancy Olivieri

– http://www.ideacityonline.com/presenters/nancy-olivieri/