Research Ethics

This thread is about researching standards.

Several questions can be asked:

1. Were the Nuremburg Standards adequate enough?

2. In your opinion, does the civilized world follow ethical and moral practices when conducting studies on humans?

3. Should some of these standards be extended to our animal test subjects?

4. If "no" to #1, what can we do differently?

inb4 butthurt.

And yes, this is trolling.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
inb4 butthurt.

And yes, this is trolling.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
inb4 butthurt.

And yes, this is trolling.

Cool. But I won't report jack. It's all good.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Were the Nuremburg Standards adequate enough?

Are there specific Nuremburg Standards for research? The human rights standards certainly aren't enough to do research ethically. Psychology has specific rules for working with vulnerable participants (persons with limited mental or legal capacity) and protection of privacy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. In your opinion, does the civilized world follow ethical and moral practices when conducting studies on humans?

In medicine it often seems like we don't do enough to protect participant from themselves. People participate in multiple studies at once which puts both them and the research at risk.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Were the Nuremburg Standards adequate enough?

no

they could serve as guidelines, though they are problematic in some ways, in that they promote some idea of what science should do in service for man as opposed to freedom to pursue scientific inquiry wherever it may lead.

Modern ethics regimes are informed more by research and ethical issues that have arisen in the past 60-70 years in the post-ww2 era than they are by the ideals directly coming from that experience. Like, the classic cases of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram or Tuskeegee are more informative than are the Nuremburg codes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. In your opinion, does the civilized world follow ethical and moral practices when conducting studies on humans?

generally yes. There is even a case to be made that modern ethics approval creates a system where researchers are increasingly restricted in how they can do research.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Should some of these standards be extended to our animal test subjects?

for the most part, they are. Animal rights has come so far that the environments animals need to be kept in is so artificial that it reduces the generalizability of animal research.

Originally posted by Oliver North
no

they could serve as guidelines, though they are problematic in some ways, in that they promote some idea of what science should do in service for man as opposed to freedom to pursue scientific inquiry wherever it may lead.

Modern ethics regimes are informed more by research and ethical issues that have arisen in the past 60-70 years in the post-ww2 era than they are by the ideals directly coming from that experience. Like, the classic cases of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram or Tuskeegee are more informative than are the Nuremburg codes.

I would note that the more we know about some of the expiriemtns done, such as the ones you listed, individuals can have more "real" informed consent.

The bad comes with the good. I think the boundries need to be pushed to set them up which you cover in your next point.*

Originally posted by Oliver North
generally yes. There is even a case to be made that modern ethics approval creates a system where researchers are increasingly restricted in how they can do research.

I agree with this.* This is the importance of "informed" ethics committees.

Originally posted by Oliver North
for the most part, they are. Animal rights has come so far that the environments animals need to be kept in is so artificial that it reduces the generalizability of animal research.

I was referring to those "some" which grants our animals friends rights that they do not have. My hope is to one day, do meaningful "science" without having to harm animals. Neither you nor I will probably live to see that day, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would note that the more we know about some of the expiriemtns done, such as the ones you listed, individuals can have more "real" informed consent.

the actual effect has been that many lines of research, including those developed by Milgram, are simply banned from practice.

concern for the well being of the subject, including potential psychological harms, is the prime concern of ethics boards, not informing the subject about what the harms might be.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the actual effect has been that many lines of research, including those developed by Milgram, are simply banned from practice.

I don't know about the banned part. More like they simply are not done because no approval is given. Like...I haven't found any laws that outright ban some of the crazier psych studies.

Originally posted by Oliver North
concern for the well being of the subject, including potential psychological harms, is the prime concern of ethics boards, not informing the subject about what the harms might be.

I think you misunderstand. By "Informed ethics committee" I meant "a committee that is informed" not a "committee that informs".

The portion you quoted is only marginally related to that statement. "Here are the potential effects of such a research project (that we didn't have a decade ago). Do you consent to being tested" is not the same thing I was talking about, above.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know about the banned part. More like they simply are not done because no approval is given. Like...I haven't found any laws that outright ban some of the crazier psych studies.

they aren't banned by law, they are banned because the zeitgeist in ethics is to not allow those types of studies.

Experiments into things like Stockholm Syndrome, however, are banned by law and have only been conducted under incredibly controlled conditions by the CIA or FBI.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you misunderstand. By "Informed ethics committee" I meant "a committee that is informed" not a "committee that informs".

The portion you quoted is only marginally related to that statement. "Here are the potential effects of such a research project (that we didn't have a decade ago). Do you consent to being tested" is not the same thing I was talking about, above.

ok, but the purpose of an ethics committee isn't to produce informed research, it is to limit potential harms on subjects.

so, yes, them being informed may help, but so long as they think there is a potential harm from using a method similar to that of Milgram, the work is in effect banned.

Ethics committees are not part of a researcher's programme, they may even be seen as antagonistic to it, by design. You might say this is something that needs to be fixed, but it was the problem of letting scientists do things behind closed doors, in theory, that lead to ethics abuses in the first place.

Originally posted by Oliver North
they aren't banned by law, they are banned because the zeitgeist in ethics is to not allow those types of studies.

That's what I thought. Using the word "banned" seems like it has legal baggage.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, but the purpose of an ethics committee isn't to produce informed research, it is to limit potential harms on subjects.

so, yes, them being informed may help, but so long as they think there is a potential harm from using a method similar to that of Milgram, the work is in effect banned.

Ethics committees are not part of a researcher's programme, they may even be seen as antagonistic to it, by design. You might say this is something that needs to be fixed, but it was the problem of letting scientists do things behind closed doors, in theory, that lead to ethics abuses in the first place.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding. I am not saying any of these things:

1. Ethics committees create research that allows them to make informed choices.

2. Ethics committees inform the potential test subjects of prior studies that may change the "voluntariness" factor of informed consent.

I felt I was quite clear in my original post you quoted but I do apologize if you felt there was some vagary in my post: that was not intentional.

I'll make the point, again but with more words: ethics committees can make better informed decisions regarding approval because they have more science with which to work to make those decisions. That is what I meant with these words: "This is the importance of "informed" ethics committees."

They can approve research, conditionally, as well, for areas of a particular research project that may come to close to the ethical edge. Providing the medium of "informed consent" is not the job of the ethics committee: it is the job of the researchers that do the screening and/or briefing.

Are we on the same page, now?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'll make the point, again but with more words: ethics committees can make better informed decisions regarding approval because they have more science with which to work to make those decisions. That is what I meant with these words: "This is the importance of "informed" ethics committees."

interestingly, it is seen as crucial to ethics committees that they have members not simply outside of the scientific community, but those representing community interests, like local leaders or religious leaders.

The idea is the same as what I mentioned above, by design, ethics committees are not supposed to be scientists rubber stamping science. They are supposed to be a broad cross-section of society because, as the logic goes, scientists will cross lines society doesn't agree with if given the freedom to do so.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They can approve research, conditionally, as well, for areas of a particular research project that may come to close to the ethical edge.

but I think you have a misunderstanding of the purpose of ethics boards. They aren't against Milgram because they don't understand the science or the purpose, they are against it because they see "tricking" someone into thinking they killed or harmed another human as immoral and potentially damaging to that person's psyche. Now, we can argue whether that is a legitimate concern, or if things haven't swung too far one way or the other, the underlying fact is that the committees are not there to make sure research near the "ethical edge" is done within certain guidelines, they are there to ensure that subjects are not harmed in any way. By design, they don't care about the research.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Providing the medium of "informed consent" is not the job of the ethics committee: it is the job of the researchers that do the screening and/or briefing.

at least here, all consent and debriefing materials must be approved by the ethics board.

lol, we good here? I thought I was going to have to whip the warning-and-ban axe out when I saw this thread.

Originally posted by Digi
lol, we good here? I thought I was going to have to whip the warning-and-ban axe out when I saw this thread.

Yes, we are good. ON and I took another thread off topic and Ushgarak laid down the hammer, already. He's said in the past to open up a thread if we want to continue an off-topic discussion in the future (making it on-topic) so I took his advice so we could continue the discussion in this thread without disrupting the other (but the other is closed).

Originally posted by Oliver North
but I think you have a misunderstanding of the purpose of ethics boards.

I think it is clear on this end.

Originally posted by Oliver North
They aren't against Milgram because they don't understand the science or the purpose,

Where did you get the impression from my post that I held that idea? I thought I cleared that up.

Originally posted by Oliver North
they are against it because they see "tricking" someone into thinking they killed or harmed another human as immoral and potentially damaging to that person's psyche.

Well, not to mention actually harming the humans such as the Little Albert experiment.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Now, we can argue whether that is a legitimate concern, or if things haven't swung too far one way or the other, the underlying fact is that the committees are not there to make sure research near the "ethical edge" is done within certain guidelines,

Well, that's not really what I said. They can approve research be done, conditionally. If the researchers agree to the conditions, then they get the approval.

Originally posted by Oliver North
they are there to ensure that subjects are not harmed in any way. By design, they don't care about the research.

I agree to the first part but I disagree with the second part. An ethics committee does review and monitor research, at times. So they do care, most directly, about research.

"Under FDA regulations, an IRB is an appropriately constituted group that has been formally designated to review and monitor biomedical research involving human subjects. In accordance with FDA regulations, an IRB has the authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove research. This group review serves an important role in the protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects.

The purpose of IRB review is to assure, both in advance and by periodic review, that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of humans participating as subjects in the research. To accomplish this purpose, IRBs use a group process to review research protocols and related materials (e.g., informed consent documents and investigator brochures) to ensure protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects of research."

Granted, the US may have different "rules" and your ethics committees function different than ours. But I think Canada's drug program (Health Canada), for example, is similar to the US's...but more efficient in some ways.

the part you quoted about IRBs lays out exactly what I was saying.

They are concerned only with subject health, by design

Originally posted by Oliver North
the part you quoted about IRBs lays out exactly what I was saying.

They are concerned only with subject health, by design

Just to be clear, you're saying this:

Originally posted by Oliver North
...the underlying fact is that the committees are not there to make sure research near the "ethical edge" is done within certain guidelines, they are there to ensure that subjects are not harmed in any way. By design, they don't care about the research.

Is congruent with this:

Originally posted by Oliver North
They are concerned only with subject health, by design

And with this?

"...an IRB is an appropriately constituted group that has been formally designated to review and monitor biomedical research involving human subjects."

It did not seem like it, in my first reading.

Disregarding the above confusion and on to another topic (still on topic with this thread), we both know that those committees are definitely not concerned with only subject health: some of them are concerned with ancillary benefits and associations...which is a different kind of unethical conduct.

lol, ok, so rephrase "subject health" to "the impact of participating in the experiment on the subject"

EDIT: my consistent point is that, by design, ethics committees aren't there to be knowledgeable about the research. In the case of something like Milgram, the importance isn't that no subjects have ever reported being traumatized by the experiment, it is that the potential exists at all. Being "more scientifically informed" really wont change that. The "issue", if we think there is a problem with the committees (and I do, I almost had my research rejected because the committee members didn't know what infrared light was) is that, and the desire to avoid legal liability for the university plays a role in this, any possible thing a board can come up with is instantly taken as totally serious. They are not supposed to give leeway for the "ethical edge", technically there should be no "ethical edge", as that sort of assumes potential for subject harm.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: my consistent point is that, by design, ethics committees aren't there to be knowledgeable about the research.

And I disagree with this. Not only will they usually have several highly educated individuals that are definitely aware of past studies and how they should be considered in contemporary research, they will also be aware of and track the progress of the research that they have approved. They would be crappy committees if they didn't continue to watch those projects, periodically, that they have approved.

Other than this, I think we really do agree. In some areas, the research ethics need to be improved (like the seedy operations and associations that get drugs pushed through that shouldn't) and in others, it needs to be more lax (15 years before a drug hits the market? Really?)

Originally posted by Oliver North
Being "more scientifically informed" really wont change that. In the case of something like Milgram, the importance isn't that no subjects have ever reported being traumatized by the experiment, it is that the potential exists at all.

I was going to disagree with that but you say something later on that disturbs me...

Originally posted by Oliver North
The "issue", if we think there is a problem with the committees (and I do, I almost had my research rejected because the committee members didn't know what infrared light was) is that, and the desire to avoid legal liability for the university plays a role in this, any possible thing a board can come up with is instantly taken as totally serious.

1. That's absurd. What type of committee do you have, there? That seems more like a "lay committee" than the committees I'm talkin about. That has its benefits but it also has huge drawbacks.
2. I think that any legit reason is a great reason to reject research or recommend amendment.

Originally posted by Oliver North
They are not supposed to give leeway for the "ethical edge", technically there should be no "ethical edge", as that sort of assumes potential for subject harm.

Yeah...about that ethical edge I mentioned:

"They can approve research, conditionally, as well, for areas of a particular research project that may come to close to the ethical edge."

That meant that if a research project has some elements that may come close to that ethical edge, they can still approve the project, but they may do so, conditionally, to pull back away from that ethical edge: as you said, liability is a concern.

wait, are we supposed to be arguing what ethics boards do or what we would like them to do

because I don't see major disagreement on the latter...

one of the reasons commonly given for banning Milgram type studies is that, the realization that a person is capable of doing that kind of harm may be unsettling. I think any rational look at "ethics" would say it is probably more important that people realize how much authority can impact them rather than they don't have to face a massively discomforting truth. I think a panel of scientists who have to look at the actual impact of research, not simply potential dangers, would make a far superior ethics board. I was just trying to portray the logic as it exists now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not only will they usually have several highly educated individuals that are definitely aware of past studies and how they should be considered in contemporary research, they will also be aware of and track the progress of the research that they have approved. They would be crappy committees if they didn't continue to watch those projects, periodically, that they have approved.

1) the voice of the informed specialists is given no more weight than community or university officials

2) most committees are so backed up they only review projects every couple of years, and that still takes a reasonable period of time. this could be more streamlined, sure, but I can think of 600000 places more money to science should go first.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. That's absurd. What type of committee do you have, there? That seems more like a "lay committee" than the committees I'm talkin about. That has its benefits but it also has huge drawbacks.

I've heard there are less restrictions on certain things in America, but I can't imagine it is perfect there either. Ask around, you can probably get some good stories.

It was defiantly a layman, who heard the term "infrared" and immediately thought about sci-fi lasers. The response I wanted to make would have been something about how much infrared light is absorbed by the eye outdoors, but my supervisor advised against it, probably for the best.

The work I did as an undergrad had a specific mention in the consent form that "being disoriented from sitting in front of a computer" was a risk from the study. My GF has to include, again as a ****ing risk, that people might be upset they answered a question on a memory test incorrectly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
as you said, liability is a concern.

my nose tells me this is the strongest motivator of the conservative nature of ethics boards

Ethics is the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.USA legal studies case study writing service is a genuine service that will help you by providing all the research materials.

http://www.clazwork.com/usa-most-chosen-legal-studies-case-study-paper-writer-nancy

USA legal studies case study writing service