Lecture 10: research ethics

explain the Tuskegee study

participants were left with untreated syphilis to examine the final stages of the disease

to act ethically, what do you need to balance?

protection of participants VS knowledge you want to gain

define “research ethics”

responsibility of researchers to be honest and respectful to all individuals in their research and in their report

what do research ethics help us determine?

whether something is legitimate/moral or not

what do research ethics encompass? (5)

• measurement techniques

• participant selection

• which research designs and strategies can be used with certain populations

• how data is analyzed

• how data is reported

why was the Nuremberg code developed?

it was a shift caused by the experiments performed on prisoners on Nazi camps

why is Milgram’s obedience study considered unethical even though it caused no physical harm to the participant?

it caused shame and embarrassment for behaving inhumanly towards other people

what are the guidelines of the Nuremberg code? (10)

1. consent

2. benefit of knowledge for society

3. knowledge or anticipated results

4. no unnecessary physical/mental suffering

5. no risk of death

6. risk must be lower than importance of problem

7. adequate facilities

8. competence of researcher

9. withdrawal is allowed

10. termination of study possible, by research or ethic boards

what are the core principles of Belmont report? (3)

• respect of person: you should consent

• beneficence: no harm = minimize risk and maximize benefits

• justice: fairness in procedures for selecting participants

what are the core principles of the TCPS? (3)

• respect for persons: participant participates only if they wish to

• concern for welfare: not exposing participants to unnecessary risk

• justice: treat everyone equally (no discrimination when choosing participants)

true or false: only the psychologists on clinal work should follow the Canadian code of ethics for psychologists

false: it applies to all psychologists (research, clinical, teaching)

what are the principles of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CPA)? (4)

• respect for dignity of persons (most important): do no harm

• responsible caring: maximize benefit, minimize harm

• integrity in relationships: honest, minimize deception

• responsibility to society: contribute to the society

explain the CPA principle of “respect for dignity of persons” (4)

• do no harm

• informed consent

• protection of privacy

• protection of vulnerable

explain the CPA principle of “responsible caring”

competence: maximize benefit and minimize harm

explain the CPA principle of “integrity in relationships”

accurate and honest: minimize deception and debriefing if it happens

explain the CPA principle of “responsibility to society”

contribute to psychology and society

what are the principles of informed consent? (3)

• participants must be informed of what will be done and why

• participants must have complete understanding

• participation must be voluntary and not coerced

if you can’t give complete disclosure (you can’t tell them why you’re doing the study) before the participant consents, what should you do?

you should explain only explain what should be done, but not why

why can’t you tell the participant the goal of the study?

because it might change their behaviour

who are considered as vulnerable populations?

individuals who lack capacity for or full freedom to give true informed consent

true or false: the guardian’s consent is enough to determine if the vulnerable participant can participate in the study

false: if the participant is vulnerable, you should seek consent from the participant and the guardian

if you do observations in public spaces, what are the conditions needed so that consent is not required? (3)

• no intervention staged by the researcher or interaction with the person

• no reasonable expectation of privacy

• dissemination of results that won’t allow identification of people

what do you need observational consent is there is “reasonable expectation of privacy”? what does that mean?

• if you go to the store, you know that there are security cameras that are observing you, you don’t expect privacy (wouldn’t need observational consent)

• if you go inside the bathroom, you expect privacy (would need observational consent)

define “deception”

not giving participants complete and accurate information

what are the types of deception? (2)

• passive: leave out some information

• active: alter information or use confederate

define “passive deception”

leaving out information, not actively lying

define “active deception”

alter information or use confederates, actively lying

true or false: deception is always rejected by the research ethics board

false: you would need to consider alternatives and justify why you reject them before the REB approves

what type of information can you NOT conceal, even when using deception? (2)

physical pain and severe emotional distress

what should you do if you used deception?

debriefing: explain why you had to deceive the participant before they leave the lab

define “confidentiality”

keeping all individual information obtained during a study in a private and secure location

define “anonymity”

data isn’t associated with participant names or identifying information

what’s the difference between confidentiality and anonymity?

• confidentiality: you keep the information about the participant private (ex: master record)

• anonymity: data isn’t associated with names or identifying info (ex: sample 2 - dyadic interaction)

how can you keep anonymity?

by using code numbers (ex: FTF059)

if only group data is reported, then it’s [good/bad] for confidentiality and anonymity

good

when can anonymity be broken?

if it’s a special medical/neuroscience case where the case is repeated across multiple studies (ex: HM)

why do we do research of animals? (4)

• learn about societies

• learn about humans

• learn about behaviour

• conduct research that are impossible to do with humans

what are the principles when reviewing animal research? (3)

• replacement: could you try replacing animals with an alternative

• reduction: could you try having less animals involved

• refinement: could you try modifying procedures to minimize distress or stress

what’s the difference between a mistake and a fraud?

• mistake: unintentional, can correct with an erratum

• fraud: effort of researcher to falsify or misrepresent data, possible retraction

what are some possible frauds? (4)

• data fabrication or falsification of findings

• plagiarism of sources

• ghost-writing and fake-peer reviews

• suppressed findings

define “ghost-writing”

third party or comity that writes for you, but doesn’t get credit

true or false: if you make a mistake (in the conclusion or in the design) and publish the paper, then your paper will get redacted

false: you can publish an erratum, which is a follow-up where you explain your mistake

where can ethic violations occur during your experiment? (2)

• data analysis

• publication phase

(can be one or both)

define “scientific misconduct”

violating basic and generally acceptable standards of honest scientific research

define “suppressed findings”

doing your experiment multiple times until it reflects your hypothesis, but not mentioning your “failed” results in your paper

define “plagiarism”

using another person’s words or ideas without giving them credit and passing them off as your own

what are some safeguards against frauds? (3)

• replication: repeat the experiment

• peer review: have reviewers revise your work

• watchdogs: have people that monitor and investigate research

how does the peer reviewing process work?

• you submit your appear to a journal

• it will be assessed by editors

• then sent to peers (people with expertise on the subject) who can ask you to revise your work

• you correct your work and send it back

• if it’s okay, it will get published (after edition, formatting)

why do unethical research happen? (3)

• publish or perish: career pressure to publish

• must obtain significant findings to publish (or else it would be a waste of time and money)

• need for success and admiration

what does “publish or perish” mean?

there is a career pressure to publish, gain prestige and keep your position as professor

true or false: information pollution increases you capacity to make informed decision

false: it decreases your capacity

define “disinformation”

information that is false and deliberately created to harm someone

define “misinformation”

information that is false, but not deliberately create with the intention of misleading or causing harm

define “malinformatiom”

information based on real facts, but manipulated to cause harm

what’s the difference between disinformation, misinformation and malinformation?

disinformation:

• false information

• created to harm

misinformation:

• false information

• wasn’t created to harm

malinformation:

• based on true facts

• manipulated to harm

define “cherry-picking”

presenting only the facts that support a certain view

define “double standard”

holding evidence that supports the scientific consensus to a higher standard than the evidence that challenges it

• in other words: accepting evidence that isn’t scientific more easily than evidence that is scientific (ex: anti-vax)

define “reliance on false experts”

amplifying the opinions of a few scientists who challenge the consensus

• ex: agreeing with a chiropractor on something about schizophrenia

define “conspiracy theories”

trying to explain harmful events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group

what’s the goal of conspiracy theories?

to make sense of social forces that are self-relevant, important and threatening

define “attribution error”

people overestimate causes that arise from human motives and underestimate causes related to situational factor

• in other words: you think that behaviour are caused by the person and not by the environment

define “confirmation bias”

tendency to focus on evidence that fits with our existing beliefs

explain the experiment that showed the existence of confirmation bias

• 2 groups of students that either believed that

  • 1) capital punishment would reduce crime rates

  • 2) capital punishment wouldn’t reduce crime rates

• students read 2 stories

  • A) story supports idea that punishment would reduce crime

  • B) story that supports idea that punishment wouldn’t reduce crime

• rates their belief after reading the story

  • 1) thought that A) was credible, but not B)

  • 2) thought that B was credible, but not A)

• → both groups were more committed to their original perspective than earlier

what are the measures used to see how news spread? (3)

• size: how many people it started with

• depth: cascade of people (you send to your 2 friends who send it to 3 of their friends)

• time: minutes elapsed

with the measures of depth, size and time, how did real news VS fake news spread?

• depth: fake news spread more over iteration

• size: fake news spread to more people

• time: false news spread more quickly

why does false news spread more quickly?

echo chamber: people who share the same strong opinion are in the same group where they are exposed to the same content

define “source attribution”

users spread news more often from a trusted source than from a trust fact

according to source attribution, which is more important: who posted the news or what was said in the news

who posted it: source attraction = who prefer trusted source than trusted facts

define “spoofing”

disguising a communication from an unknown source as originating from a known and trusted source

define “caller ID spoofing’

deliberately falsifying the information shown on a phone caller ID display to disguise an identity

define “email spoofing”

email sent from a false sender address, asking for sensitive data

define “online news spoofing”

posting a fake news story on a fraudulent website designed to look legitimate

why does it take a long time for a restricted article to be recognized as false news? (3)

• startling findings are more talked about than their restriction

• follow up news on old topics is less interesting

• some scientists didn’t read the retraction