HD FS 503
Ethics
Susan Hegland
February 25, 2002
Next Week Exam
•
•
•
•
Bring your own paper
10 terms to explain and give example
Two essay exams
Graded anonymously: last 4 digits of your
Social Security number on each page.
• 3 hours
• See study guide; consider study groups
Research Ethics
• May differ from ethical responsibilities as a
service provider (e.g., teacher, nurse, social
worker, therapist)
• Legal requirements differ from state to state
• California: 24-hour mandated reporter
• Iowa: Mandated reporters only
– while on the job
– for those with specific job titles
Chapter 10
Ethical Standards and
Legal Constraints
Ethics in HD FS Research
Responsibilities to
• Research Participants
• Scientific Knowledge
• Colleagues
What to do?
• Studying quality of child care centers
• Identify evidence of noncompliant practices
– Child-staff ratios double legal limits
– Propped baby bottles
– Children left alone in sleeping rooms
• Guaranteed confidentiality to participants
• What to do? Why?
1
Why so many ethical problems in
research?
• A research problem can produce multiple
questions of proper behavior
• Sensitivity to ethical issues is necessary (but not
sufficient) for solving them
• Ethical problems result from conflicting values
• Adequate understanding of ethics requires broad
perspective on consequences (intended &
unintended)
Risks for participants
• Actual changes in health, attitudes, personality,
self-concept
• Experience that creates tension or anxiety
• Invasion of privacy--collection of private
information that might embarrass them or make
them liable to legal actions
• Receiving unpleasant information about
themselves that they might not have to confront
Two Ethical Approaches
Sources of ethical problems
•
•
•
•
Both personal and professional elements
Both subject matter and conduct of study
Pertain to science (as a body of knowledge)
Pertain to conduct that protects rights of society
and research participants
• Judgments lie on continuum from clearly unethical
to clearly ethical
• Ethical problems come from result of conducting
or not conducting a study!
Damages are moderated by
• Degree of identification of participants (to
researchers, themselves, each other)
• By way in which they are reported in the
study
• Consequences of identification
Teleological Theories of Ethics
• Teleological (“Ends”)
– Judge the act by its consequences
– Good for scientific understanding?
– Good for the group as a whole?
• Deontological (“Duty”)
– Certain actions are good or evil in and of themselves
– Act shows loyalty, gratitude, justice?
– Act helps others?
• Ethical Egoists
– Nietzche, Hobbes
– Criteria: Well being of moral agent
– Focus: Consequences of alternative actions
• Utilitarians
– J. S. Mill
– Criteria: Aggregate common good
– Focus: Consequences of alternative action
2
Deontological Theories of Ethics
Another Deontological Theory
Rights -Based
• Rawls
• Criteria:
Rights of individuals
Duty-Based
• Kant; Ross
• Criteria:
Duties of Behavior
– Dignity, liberty
– fidelity, gratitude, justice, truth
• Focus:
Relevant rights of individuals affected by
actions
• Focus:
Relevant duties in the situation
Cost and Utility of Doing
Research
A’
High Do
B
Cost of not Doing
Cost of Doing
A
High Don’t Do
Cost and Utility of Not Doing
Research
n
sio
eci
ind
f
o
al
gon
Dia
Low
C
Do
Low
High
Low
C’
D
Utility of Doing
Decision Not to Do
•
•
•
•
•
n
sio
eci
nd
i
f
al o
gon
Dia
Do
A
Don’t
Do
Low
High
D’
Case studies
Don’t Do
A’
n
sio
eci
nd
i
f
al o
gon
Dia
Utility of Not Doing
Balance: To do? Or not to do?
D’
B’
Tuskegee Syphilis
Wichita Jury
Milgram’s studies on electric shock
Cambridge-Somerville Youth
Springdale
D
Decision to Do
3
Tuskegee Syphilis Study
• 1932: U.S. Public Health Service
• Long term effects of untreated syphilis
“bad blood”
• 400 semiliterate African-American men
• Special free treatments: spinal taps
– nontherapeutic and painful
– no penicillin, no debriefing!
Wichita Jury Study
• Hidden microphones taped 6 jury
deliberations
• Approved by opposing counsels and judges
• Unknown to jury members
• Discontinued in 1972 after press disclosure
• Law now requires IRB review: all research
Reactions?
Teleological?
• Could affect later juries
• Could improve jury training
Deontological?
• Violates rights of jury members
• Violates U S Constitution
Reactions?
Teleological or Deontological?
• Baumrind: Future subjects won’t cooperate
or believe purpose
• S’s experienced discomfort
(Milgram and S’s deny)
• Milgram: Overreaction due to negative
results, not due to procedure!
• More sensitive topics are more criticized for
ethical violations
Milgram’s research (Yale)
• 1960’s: “Punishment & Learning”
– Actually: Extent of obedience
• Subject: taught words to another subject
– E: told S to give shocks to other student for mistakes
• Confederate pretended to make mistakes
and to be in pain
– S’s could quit when and if they wanted
– S’s were later debriefed
• Findings: S’s were very obedient
Cambridge-Somerville Youth
• 1939 Cabot study in Boston
• 506 boys from 5 to 13 years
• Half difficult (“ predelinquent’);
half average kids
• Half assigned to preventive treatment
Five years of services:
– Tutoring
– Medical assistance
– Friendly advice
4
Cambridge Follow-up
1975: McCord
• Found 95% of original sample
• Treatment exceeded control group in
–
–
–
–
–
–
alcoholism
serious mental illness
early deaths
more stress-related diseases
more second crimes
more lower-prestige jobs
Reactions
• Labeling created perception of weakness in
participants
• Created dependency on service providers,
then terminated services
• Participants cut off other supports
• Later feelings of deprivation
• Iatrogenic impact?!
Empowerment vs dependency?
Springdale
• Treatments that foster too much dependency
are dangerous
• Descriptive field study of small town
• Guarantee of confidentiality
• Some prominent individuals can be
identified in book
• Book tone is condescending and patronizing
• Embarrassment led to pillorying of
researchers
– When services end, participants are left
unserved
Munoz: equally dangerous:
• Treatments that foster too much
empowerment
– individuals accept blame for societal problems
Reactions?
• Loss of self esteem of participants
• Participants question value of scientific
inquiry
• No further research participation
• Claims of inaccuracy lead to doubts in
study’s conclusions
Implications of each study?
•
•
•
•
•
Tuskegee
Milgram
Wichita Jury
Cambridge-Somerville
Springdale
5
Research Participants
• Human Subjects Committee (IRB) approval
• Voluntary participation and withdrawal
• First Do No Harm!
– Referrals for Comparison Participants
•
•
•
•
Anonymity and confidentiality
Informed consent
Deception & Debriefing
Analysis and reporting requirements
Human Subjects Committee
• ISU: any research including class projects
• No unnecessary risk
• Risks outweighed by benefits
– to subjects
– in scientific knowledge
• Rights and welfare of participants protected
• Periodic review
• Informed consent obtained and documented
Voluntary participation
•
•
•
•
•
Signed informed consent form
Modified consent as legally required
Parental consent for children
Readability appropriate for participants
Freedom to withdraw at any time without
penalty
Informed consent
• Explanation of procedures and purposes (length of
time)
• Describes reasonable risks or discomforts
• Description of any benefits (e.g., $$$$)
• Any alternative procedures of benefit
• Confidentiality of responses
• Offer to answer questions
• Participation is voluntary
• Free to withdraw at any time
Confidentiality of responses
• Limits of confidentiality
– Victim’s rights
– Child abuse
Ethical Case Studies
• Locked data cabinets
• Identities removed from data
• Notebook of identities in a separate location
6
Scientific Knowledge
Teleological vs Deontological?
Four Questions:
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
What’s the ethical challenge?
Describe what the researcher should do?
Based on teleological or deontological ethics?
What could have prevented this problem?
Ridgewood Parenting
Grover’s Corner Child Care Study
Main Street Suicide Prevention Study
Downers Lake Literacy Study
• Cooking
– Massaging data until the “right” results appear
• Trimming
– Dropping cases that don’t fit
– Underreporting attrition
• Forging
– Making up the data
Colleagueal Relations
Forging
• “Sir” Cyril Burt:
IQ’s of identical twins reared apart
• One of our transition sites:
interviewer made up the data
(and kept $20)
• Discovered the next year
when no participant remembered study
(or $20!)
• Do unto Others...
• Give credit
– Paraphrasism(Levin)
• Plagiarism
– Recent Ph. D. in HD FS rescinded!
• Stand up for your rights...
– Authorship for intellectual contributions only
– Negotiate with major professor
– Order determined by relative contributions
Four Authorship Studies
• Two questions:
– Should student receive authorship, give the nature of
his/her contributions?
– Should the student receive first authorship, given the
nature of his/her contributions
Authorship Case Studies
•
•
•
•
Wynn’s Assistantship
Sue’s Thesis
Ann’s Dissertation
Tina’s Thesis
7
Assignment 2.0
• See Code Book on p. 46 of Handbook
• Same partners as for assignment 1
– One group will have 3 partners, including Dan
• Questions?
Suggestions for Paper
• Demonstrate mastery of lecture & lab
• Like a take-home exam over HD FS 503
• Like a mini-thesis (weighted to methods & results
sections)
• See:
– Krathwohl Appendix:
Writing a Research Proposal
– HDFS Handbook
– Grading Criteria:
• Note weighting of components!!!
See you next week...
8