Psychological research does not occur in a vacuum. It can have impact, negative as well as positive, on participants as well as on others in the larger society. The goal of this assignment is to help you choose topics and methods for performing psychological research in a socially responsible manner.

Discuss the seven hypothetical cases below from a website, http://www.mcmaster.ca/ors/ethics/tutorial/sample.htm

created by the Office of Research Services at McMaster University in Canada.

(Note: In Canada, “REB” is the counterpart of the IRB)

1. An Ethnographic Study of Indigenous People

A research ethics board member is reading a protocol for expedited review. The research involves participant observation with a group of indigenous people in Siberia. The researcher had made previous studies with the indigenous group and had made many contacts of key individuals. Earning the trust of the group was a basic requirement for doing any research amongst them, which the researcher had done. The REB member notices that no consent form is attached. The researcher has asked that the consent form not be used in this case because the culture being studied is an oral culture where writing has little or no meaning. The researcher will obtain verbal consent from the people, in the manner that they wish the information used. The researcher will also only be interviewing adults who are competent to consent. The REB reviewer decides to approve the research ethics application.

Question: Can research using interviews or surveys be approved if there is no written consent to the research?

2. Dr. Smith has just finished writing his application for ethics review for a new therapeutic drug. He wants to begin Phase I of the Clinical trial as soon as possible and is very optimistic that the research subjects who have the disease being studied will experience direct benefits from the drug. All Dr. Smith has to do now is recruit subjects for the study. His mind is comfortable because he has decided only to recruit male subjects because he doesn't want any perceived risks to women in the study to block his chances for ethics approval. His research sponsor also recommends the convenience of using only male subjects, believing the data can be generalized to women.

Question: Who can Dr. Smith include or exclude from his research?

3. Elementary School Research Participants

An anthropologist has done research in education in many different world cultures. Having compiled data on diet and nutrition she is now interested in comparing it with Canadian school children. She is aware that the children are not competent to consent to the research and so prepares a consent form for parents to sign. There are however sensitive questions she must ask the children as she also intends to measure body weight. She speaks to the Chair of the Research Ethics Board prior to submitting her application and learns that the children should also be free to give their assent to the research. They may not want to divulge potentially embarrassing information. The Chair also advises the researcher to write the consent form for parents in different languages to reflect the demographics of the urban area of the city. The Chair agrees that protecting the anonymity of the children is important so they are not embarrassed by any weight measurements.

Question: How can social scientists protect legally incompetent research participants from risk by first obtaining their assent to research?

4. A Graduate Social Worker's Master's Thesis

A research ethics board member is reviewing a protocol submitted by a social work graduate student for his Master's Thesis. It uses data from files at the Children's Aid Society. His research is of a sensitive nature as it involves case studies of men who had sexually abused their children. Having heard about a therapeutic intervention program for the men, he was interested in its effectiveness and wished to study the case histories. He was not interested in interviewing the people involved, only examining records in existence. The ethics board member judged this case to be more than minimal risk and even suggested full board review. However, the researcher had explained how confidentiality would be maintained according to the Oath of Confidentiality he signed as an employee of Children's Aid, and by referring to sections of the Child & Family Services Act. The research was approved conditional on the researcher obtaining signed consent forms from caseworkers. The researcher further argued that the caseworkers would respect the confidentiality and anonymity of the participant-subjects in any respect.

Question: When can more than minimal risk research be approved?

5. Research Design with Humans in Mind

A meeting of the full research ethics board was called to evaluate a faculty geography research protocol proposed to examine the health affects from toxic substances that polluted water and land around an industrial site. Members who did a preliminary review thought the protocol was more than minimal risk. They found problems with the size of the survey to be given to the community, the qualifications of the telephone interviewers, and a possible conflict of interest as a research partner was the chair of the community group advocating the study. Many of the survey questions were misleading or not sensitive enough to the participants, so members wondered how the participants could be protected from stress or embarrassment, and if the researchers could truly promise confidentiality. The board decided to ask the researcher to resubmit the protocol and the Chair was delegated to meet the researcher to discuss the problems involved with the application. After a meeting and some more email correspondence, the research was approved.

Question: Can members of a research ethics board question the scholarly design of a research ethics application?

6. The Internet as a Research Tool: For Deception!

An undergraduate psychology student has presented a research protocol for her honours thesis which uses an email solicitation to provoke a response to help. Essential to testing this theory of altruism and group identity was to maintain deception, without debriefing throughout the research. There would be no debriefing. The participants would receive an email asking a common question to which they could volunteer an answer or not. The undergraduate research ethics committee invited the researcher and her thesis supervisor to a meeting to discuss the application. The committee referred to the Tri-Council Policy Statement for guidance on research that essentially waives the need for consent. With some tweaking to the possible time needed for respondents to reply to the email, the protocol was judged to be minimal risk and scientifically valid, and was approved.

Question: When is deception a valid method for research that is ethically approvable?

7. What Conflict of Interest?

Dr. Ramira is preparing to submit her application to the medical research ethics board. The research involves a clinical trial for a new drug. The clinical trial is being sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and Dr. Ramira is beginning to wonder if she needs to declare a conflict of interest to the REB. Her husband is an executive and employee of the sponsoring company. The company did not know this when they approached her for sponsoring the research, as it was a large international corporation. Nevertheless, because of the perceived conflict of interest, Dr. Ramira decided to declare this apparent conflict of interest on the information letter for the research participant-subjects.

Question: Who can decide if there is a real or perceived conflict of interest in research?