Lab 6: Ethics in Research

Lab 6: Ethics in Research

Overview of Ethics in Research

  • Importance of ensuring fair, safe, and informed treatment of research participants.

    • Focus on avoiding deception that may induce harm to individuals.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

  • Role and function of IRBs in research ethics.

    • Ensure research adheres to accepted scientific standards.

    • Safeguard the physical and emotional well-being of participants.

    • Evaluate the balance between risk and benefit before approving studies.

Role of the IRB

  • Mandates that researchers do not subject individuals to unreasonable pain or discomfort.

  • Informed Consent:

    • Requirement that participants are fully informed about study procedures.

    • Considerations for individuals unable to provide informed consent, such as:

    • Minors (individuals under 18 years old).

    • Persons with certain developmental disabilities.

  • Deception in research:

    • If deception is utilized, a debriefing session is mandatory to clarify the truth post-study.

Ethical Dilemmas in Research

  • Occurrence of ethical dilemmas when researchers perceive that treatment administered to one group significantly outperforms that of another group.

    • Ethical obligation to provide effective treatment to the control group once effectiveness is established.

  • Example Case:

    • Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, which illustrates the importance of ethical standards in clinical trials.

Ethics in Research Involving Animals

  • Recognizes that some animals share similarities with humans.

  • Animals serve as useful models for specific human behaviors and conditions.

  • Ethical consideration:

    • Establishing a balance between the well-being of animals involved and the benefits derived for human populations through research.

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)

  • Function of the IACUC in overseeing research involving animal subjects.

Case Study 1: Harlow and Zimmerman’s “Surrogate Mother” Research (1959)

  • Focus: Examining whether feeding or contact comfort is the primary cause of attachment in infant monkeys.

Case Study 2: Romanian Orphans

  • Key researchers: Nelson, Zeanah, Fox, Marshall, Smyke, and Guthrie (2007).

  • Prior research established a correlation between institutionalization and cognitive/socio-emotional delays.

  • Objective:

    • Charles Nelson aimed to establish a causal relationship between institutionalization and developmental delay.

    • Methodological steps included eliminating selection bias.

    • Subjects were randomly assigned to either:

    • Remaining in the orphanage.

    • Adoption into foster care.

Findings from Case Study 2: Romanian Orphans

  • Early foster care linked with improved brain development as evidenced by EEG readings.

    • Study Outcomes:

    • Institutionalized group: significantly delayed developmental results.

    • Subjects in foster care after 24 months demonstrated poor outcomes similar to institutionalized peers.

    • Subjects receiving foster care before 24 months fared better, showing normal alpha wave readings on EEG (indicating healthier brain development).

    • Graphic Representation:

      • Details the differences in alpha wave patterns based on institutionalization and timing of foster care placement.

Minimal Risk in Research Ethics

  • Definition of minimal risk:

    • “The study also presented no more than minimal risk to the subjects; specifically, children assigned to the IG continued to receive the same care as if the study had not been conducted.”

Long-Term Effects of Random Assignment

  • Example:

    • Children in Los Angeles selected randomly to attend magnet schools.

    • Such assignments yield long-term educational and social consequences, depending on group placement.

Instructions for Lab 6 Group Work

  1. Upload a copy of the Lab 6 Google Worksheet to the shared group folder.

  2. Collaborate with your group to complete the questions.

  3. Designate a group member to submit the completed work on Gradescope.

  4. After submission, select all contributing group members from the list, restricting selections to those present in class only.

  5. Initiate preparations for Lab 5 free recall study.

    • Data submission deadline: November 26th.

    • Individual report due: December 2nd.

Setting Up Lab 5 Experiment & Data Collection

  • Guidelines for stimuli setup and data collection:

    • Utilize PowerPoint or Google Slides to create word lists.

    • Set timing for word presentations to maintain specific intervals.

    • Participants to document their responses via paper, Zoom chat, or Google documents.

    • Facilitator can use FaceTime, Skype, or Zoom to share cue cards or display their screen.

Data Management

  • Data should be tagged by ID only.

  • All data must be recorded in a shared folder spreadsheet.

    • Example of data entry format:

    • Subject ID 5 Version 1

      • Black Font = 5/20 = 25%

      • Green Font = 10/20 = 50%