book notes - Ch3:ResearchEthics Examples Tuskegee Syphilis...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ch 3: Research Ethics Examples Tuskegee Syphilis Study US violated basic human rights of research participants Staging of a liquor store burglary Watch bystanders’ reactions Police were called and guns were drawn What types of men engage in anonymous sex in public restrooms w other men Failure to obtain consent from participants Lied to Dept of Motor Vehicles to get home addresses Approached participants a year later Wichita Jury Study Tape record 6 jury deliberations without their knowledge Undermining the judicial system Prison simulation When labeled as “prisoners” or “guards” they started to confuse real life with new personas Didn’t guarantee the safety for all participants Adolescent alcohol consumption project Adolescents felt deceived by researcher They were open about their consumption. When he published the results, parents became strict and participants felt confidentiality was violated Book written under pseudoname to protect students who were voluntarily interviewed, lived in dorm, in class with actual person
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Real name was released before books hit shelves Ethical to observe dorm students in natural environment? Good means- Good end: Ethical behavior Divulge all information to participants before the study Bad means-Bad end: Unethical behavior Milgram study Deceive participants – one has a seizure due to stress Bad means-Good end: Machiavellian ethic The end justifies the means Researcher overstates findings (bad means) about harmful nature of a drug in order for people to stop doing it (good end) Good means-Bad end: Subjective ethic Media researcher conducts research on how to appropriately deliver communicated messages during a political campaign (good mean), but then a candidate uses the study to create manipulative messages that will get him elected (bad end) The Belmont Report’s Effect on Research Ethics 1. Researchers should respect all possible research particiants as autonomous individuals who have the capability of making decisions about their participation in a research project. Inform them of the process, risks, nature of study “informed consent” Participants with “diminishe autonomy” need additional protection 2. Need for researchers to guarantee beneficence – obligates researchers to make sure that during the process, they maximize possible benefits an minimize harms to participants. 3. Justice – those who take risks of research should receive benefits from it clear justification for singling out specific groups to help them
Background image of page 2
Institutional Review Boards Basics Ensure researchers protect and inform participants Should participants be paid? Determination and understanding of anonymity, privacy, confidentiality Anonymity – researcher does not know who participated in a study or which results belong to which participant Privacy – having control over the extent, timing, circumstances of sharing oneself (physically, behaviorally, intellectually) w others Confidentiality – making sure you don’t divulge any information about a participant that could
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/04/2012 for the course COM 262 taught by Professor Staff during the Summer '08 term at Miami University.

Page1 / 18

book notes - Ch3:ResearchEthics Examples Tuskegee Syphilis...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online