The Continual Cycle of Science
Research question
about the real world
Research
hypothesis
Theory
Interpretation
Data
gathering
Statistical
analyses
Research Methods in Psychology
■ The goals of psychology are to describe,
explain, predict, change, prevent, increase,
decrease, modify, shape, extinguish, cause,
and control behavior.
■ These goals are accomplished by using the
scientific method, which is systematic and
empirical . . . [that is] . . . based on observable
and measurable events.
Extracted from Prentice-Hall Ch. 1 PP Slide Show for Davis & Palladino Text, Psychology, 4th
Edition. Dr. Vessels’ Additions are shown in brackets.
Case Studies & Naturalistic Observation
A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single
person or event.
Although the findings of a case study may apply
only to the person who was studied, they may
provide direction for further study using other
methods.
To study behavior in real-life settings,
psychologists often use naturalistic observation.
This technique also may suggest research
projects using more controlled approaches.
In using naturalistic observation, the onlooker
must be unobtrusive and avoid influencing the
behavior being studied.
Extracted from Prentice-Hall Ch. 1 PP Slide Show for Davis & Palladino Text, Psychology, 4th Edition. Vessels’ additions are shown in brackets.
Correlational Research
● Correlational studies do not inform us about cause;
[rather, they reveal relationships and help us form
reasonable hypotheses (informed predictions) about
whether or not one event or variable causes another].
● Correlational research tells whether the values of two
variables are related.
Extracted from Prentice-Hall Ch. 1 PP Slide Show for Davis & Palladino Text, Psychology, 4th Edition. Dr. Vessels’ additions are shown in brackets.
Making Inferences about Causality
Hypothesis: Children who watch
violence on television tend to be more
aggressive toward their peers and
siblings.
Question: Can we infer a causal
relationship between these two
variables?
Watching
Violence on
TV
+
Violent
Behavior
Inferences about Causality
Answer: not necessarily
Explanation: Although causality implies
correlation, correlation does not
necessarily imply causality.
Elaboration: There are at least three
other ways to explain the correlation
between TV viewing and aggressive
behavior.
Three Plausible Alternative
Inferences about Causality
(1) Acting aggressively makes you want
to watch more violent TV
Watching
Violent
on TV
+
Violent
Behavior
The 2nd Plausible Alternative
Inference about Causality
(2) Acting violent makes you want to
watch more TV and watching TV
makes you act more violently
Watching
Violent
on TV
+
+
Violent
Behavior
The 3rd Plausible Alternative
Inference about Causality
(3) A “third variable” influences both
variables, causing them to be correlated
Watching
Violence
on TV
+
Violent
Behavior
Living in a
Violent
Family
+
How do we choose from
these possibilities?
One way to do so is to conduct an
experiment.
In an experiment, at least one
variable is manipulated (i.e.
systematically varied) by a researcher
in order to study its effects on another
variable.
Experimental Research
Basic features:
(a) At least one variable is manipulated or
varied by the experimenter: independent
variable (IV)
(b) Another variable that is expected to be
changed by the manipulation is called the
dependent variable (DV)
(c) Random assignment to two groups
IV
Watching
Violent
on TV
+
Violent
Behavior
DV
Experimental Research
Because it can . . . [support] cause-andeffect statements, . . . the experimental
method is the most powerful . . .
By manipulating an independent variable
(the possible cause), the researcher . . .
[can determine with reasonable certainty]
. . . . whether [or not] it influences the
dependent variable (the effect).
Extracted from Prentice-Hall Ch. 1 PP Slide Show for Davis & Palladino Text, Psychology, 4th Edition.
Dr. Vessels’ additions are shown in brackets.
Possible Specifics of Experimental Study
IV
DV
The Independent
Variable is
watching
violence on TV
The Dependent
Variable is
aggressive
behavior
Levels:
Operational
definition:
(a) view an episode of
the Sopranos
(b) view an episode of
the Sopranos in which
the violent scenes have
been edited
The number of times
the child punches
his or her peers on
the playground
Single Group or Within-Subject Designs
Versus
Multiple Group or Between-Subject Designs
●
The former offers at least some control through pre-post testing.
●
The latter offers control through random assignment of subjects,
which makes the groups equivalent. Pre-post testing can still be
used, which essentially incorporates a within-subject aspect that
strengthens the study.
●
When random assignment is not possible and intact groups must
be used, control is only achieved through pre-post testing in both
groups and using the same statistical test as with the random
groups design with pre-post testing (ANCOVA), but with needed
adjustments based on the reliability of measures used.
Threats to Internal Validity or Cause-Effect Inferences
There are many threats to internal validity in single group or withinsubject studies as seen below, and these are not removed with pretesting.
There is only one threat to internal validity when using multiple-group or
between-subject designs: the groups not being comparable before the study.
This threat is called selection bias. A selection threat is anything other than
the program that results in posttest differences between groups.
Primary Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Single Group Threats. Retrieved fromhttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intsing.htm
There Are Two Major Types of
Experimental Research
(1) True experimental research design
–
Search for cause-and-effect
relationships in a “manipulated
environment”
–
Random assignment to groups
–
Independent variable manipulated
Two Major Types of Experimental
Research Continued
(2) Quasi-experimental research design
– Search for cause-and-effect
relationships in a “manipulated
environment”
– No random assignment to groups
– Independent variable manipulated
Are subjects assigned randomly to
experimental and control groups?
YES
NO
Randomized or
True Experiment
Is there a comparison group?
Are there pre-post measures?
YES
Quasi-Experiment
NO
Non-Experiment
Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Types of Designs. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/destypes.htm
Two-Group Posttest-Only Randomized
Experiment
●
This is the simplest experimental design.
●
The experimental group gets the treatment or program or
independent variable (X) and the control group doesn't.
●
Notice that a pretest is not required for this design because we
assume that the two groups are equivalent to begin with.
R
R
X
O
O
Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Two-Group Experimental Designs. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expsimp.htm
The Analysis of Covariance Design (ANCOVA or ANACOVA) is
simply a pretest-posttest randomized experimental design.
The pre-program measure or pretest is called a "covariate"
because we "covary" it with the outcome variable in order to
remove variability or “noise.” The ANCOVA design is a "noise
reduction" experimental design.
It "adjusts" for the effects of one variable on another. You can use
any continuous variable as a covariate. The pretest is usually best
because it is the most highly correlated with the posttest. When you
"remove' it, you remove extraneous variability from the posttest.
R O X O
R O
O
Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Covariance Designs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expcov.htm
Categorizing Other Experimental Designs
We can divide all other experimental designs into two
categories: signal enhancers and noise reducers. Enhancing
the “signal” (effects) or reducing the “noise” (variability)
improves the research.
The signal-enhancing experimental designs are called
factorial designs. Here the focus is on aspects of the program
or treatment and how they are separated in the study plan. In a
typical factorial design there are many different variations of the
treatment or independent variable.
There are two types of noise-reducing experimental
designs: covariance designs and blocking. These designs
use information about the makeup of the sample or about preprogram variables to remove some of the noise in your study.
Primary Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Classifying Experimental Designs. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expclass.htm
The signal-enhancing experimental designs are called
factorial designs. Here the focus is on aspects of the program
or treatment and how they are set up in the study. In a typical
factorial design there are many different variations of the
treatment or independent variable.
Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Factorial Designs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expfact.htm
Quasi-Experimental Research Designs
The Non-Equivalent Groups Design (NEGD) is frequently used
in social research. It is structured like a pretest-posttest
randomized experiment but lacks random assignment. Intact
treatment and comparison groups are used instead. There are
other quasi-experimental designs besides the NEGD.
The NEGD is especially vulnerable to internal validity threats.
Prior differences between the groups may affect the outcome of
the study. This can lead to the conclusion that a program did not
have an effect when in fact it did, or that it did have an effect when
in fact it didn't.
N O X O
N O
O
Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Quasi-Experimental Designs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasiexp.htm
Ethics
A branch of philosophy in which we study and
evaluate arguments about right and wrong
actions.
Research ethics
A branch of philosophy in which we study and
evaluate arguments about right and wrong
actions in the search for generalizable
knowledge, scientific theories and principles,
and technological advancement.
Research Ethics Topics
1. Data acquisition, management, sharing,
and ownership
2. Mentor / trainee responsibilities
3. Publication practices and responsible
authorship
4. Peer review
5. Collaborative science
6. Research involving human subjects
7. Research involving animal subjects
8. Research misconduct
9. Conflict of interest and commitment
- NIH Core Instructional Areas
The Ethics of Human Research
Is About:
• Doing valid research (using accepted scientific
methods)
• Appropriate sampling (to get valid results)
• Respecting people and their communities
• Protecting research participants
• Benefiting individuals and society
• Creating a basis for socially beneficial policies
• Disseminating findings effectively
• Facilitating the application of findings
Well Known Major Cases
Involving Unethical Research in the U.S.
Tuskegee Syphilis Study 1932-1972
U.S. Radiation Experiments 1940s
Willowbrook Study, NY 1956-1972
Milgram Study, 1961
Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, 1963
U.S. Army LSD studies/National Airport,
1963-4
Stanford Prison Study, 1971
Nazi War Crimes - WWII
Victims of Dr. Josef Mengele's
medical experiments at
Auschwitz-Birkenau. Poland, 1944.
Nazi physician Carl Clauberg
performed medical experiments on prisoners
in Block 10 of the Auschwitz camp.
Poland, between 1941 and 1944
Mid 20th Century
Scandals
Willowbrook State School, Staten Island, NY, 1950s
• Children at this institution for the retarded
were fed extracts of stools from individuals
infected with the hepatitis virus.
• Justification by Willowbrook’s Research Director, Dr. Saul Krugman,
was that children in the crowded facility would likely contract
hepatitis anyway.
• Parental “permission” was obtained through misleading them about
lengthy admission process for non-participating children.
Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Cancer Experiments - 1960s
• Twenty two chronically ill, debilitated, non-cancer patients injected
with live human cancer cells
• They were not told about the cancer cells because doctors
(researchers) "did not wish to stir up any unnecessary anxieties in
the patients" who had "phobia and ignorance" about cancer.
• Research funded by U.S.P.H.S. and American Cancer Society.
• Two years later, the American Cancer Society elected the principal
investigator to be their Vice-President.
Stanford Prisoner Study
1971
http://www.prisonexp.org/
PHS Syphilis
Study
Disclosed 1972
1932, Public Health Service study, in collaboration with the
Tuskegee Institute in Macon County, Alabama, undertook a
study of untreated syphilis in hopes of justifying treatment
programs for blacks.
600 black men (399 with syphilis, 201 without) were told they
had "bad blood," a local term used to describe syphilis, anemia,
and fatigue.
Penicillin, treatment of choice, was discovered in 1940s but
was withheld.
In exchange for taking part in the study, the men received free
medical exams, free meals, and burial insurance. Although
originally projected to last 6 months, the study actually went
on for 40 years.
PHS Syphilis Study
To entice their continued participation, PHS doctors sent them a
letter titled, “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The men
submitted to painful and dangerous spinal taps.
The fact that autopsies would
eventually be required was
also concealed.
The Surgeon General of the
United States participated in
enticing the men to remain in
the experiment, sending them
certificates of appreciation
after 25 years in the study.
By end of study in 1970s, 28 men were dead of syphilis, 100 were
dead of related complications, 40 of their wives were infected, and
19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis.
Scientists Behaving Badly
BC Martinson, MS Anderson, & R de Vries. (2005). Nature, 435: 737-38
• NIH funded survey
• 3,247 early/mid
career
• (~47% rr)
Engaged in
Top 10 Behaviors
• Early = 28%
• Mid = 38%
• Overall = 33%
plus expect an
underreporting bias.
Significant Events
PHS Syphilis Study, formerly “Tuskegee Study”
Nuremberg Code 1947
U.S. Scandals
Henry Beecher: "Ethics and Clinical Research"
Public Health Service Policy Adopting IRBs
Declaration of Helsinki
Stanford Prisoner Study (1971)
PHS “Tuskegee Study” Revealed (1972)
National Research Act & 45 CFR 46
Belmont Report (1979)
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
Significant Events
Common Rule 1991
Nicole Wan dies at Rochester 1996
President Clinton apologizes to PHS Syphilis study survivors
Jesse Gelsinger dies at U Penn
OPRR shuts down LA VA Medical, Duke, U Ill, UC, U Penn
OPRR shuts down VCU, UAB, U Okla
OPRR reorganized as OHRP, moved to Cabinet level
and Director replaced, June 2000
Ellen Roche dies at Johns Hopkins; OHRP
suspends JH federally funded research
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human
Research Protections replaces National
Human Research Protections Advisory
Committee
1990
1996
1997
1999
2000
2001 2002
Ethical Framework
C
P
Consequences
Principles
I
Interests
FFP?
Fabrication is making up results and recording or
reporting the fabricated results.
Falsification is manipulating research materials,
equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data
or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's
ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit and without specific approval,
including those obtained through confidential review of
others' research proposals and manuscripts.
Belmont Report, 1979
National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research
This report is the basis of all federal
regulations regarding the protection of
human subjects in research
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belm
ont.htm
Historical Review – Ethical Codes
Belmont Report
9/30/1978 the National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
submitted its report entitled “The Belmont Report:
Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Research.”
The Report, named after the Belmont Conference Center
at the Smithsonian Institution where the discussions
were held, sets forth the basic ethical principles
underlying the acceptable conduct of research involving
human subjects.
Belmont Report, 1979
Articulates 3 Basic Ethical Principles:

Respect For Persons – Autonomy of the
Individual

Beneficence – Risk Minimization

Justice – Burdens and Benefits of Research
are Equitably Distributed
Historical Review – Ethical Codes
Belmont Report
Respect for persons – informed consent which
contains the three elements: information,
comprehension and voluntariness
Beneficence – risk/benefits assessment: study is
carefully designed so that the benefits are maximized
and any potential harm is minimized (benefit is not
monetary!)
Justice – requires all subjects be treated fairly: selection
of research subjects must be the result fair selection
procedures and fair selection outcomes
The Belmont Report
Respect for Persons
– Recognition of personal dignity and
autonomy
– Special protection of those with
diminished autonomy
– Informed Consent
Information
Comprehension
Voluntariness
The Belmont Report
Beneficence
– Obligation to protect persons from harm
– Maximize anticipated benefit, minimize
possible harm
– Risk/benefit ratio
Risk – probability, magnitude
Benefit – subject, society
The Belmont Report
Justice
– Fair distribution of research benefits and
burdens
– Inclusion/exclusion on scientific basis
rather than convenience, availability
– Two levels of justice
Social
Individual
** More information about the Belmont Report can be found in the
UI Investigator’s Guide Chapter 2.
Federal Regulations
DHHS
– Title 45 CFR Part 46
FDA
– Title 21 CFR Part 50, Protection of
Human Subjects
– Title 21 CFR Part 56, Institutional
Review Boards
Federal Regulations for the Protection
of Subjects from Research Risks
(Based on Belmont Report)
45 CFR Part 46
1981
45 CFR 46
Subpart A -- Basic Protections
Subpart B -- Pregnant Women,
Neonates and Fetuses
Subpart C -- Prisoners
Subpart D -- Children
Oversight
Federal law requires the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) to issue regulations for
the protection of human subjects in research
projects [codified at Title 45, Part 46 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Protection of Human
Subjects]
The Office of Human Research Protections
(OHRP) is the unit within DHHS that implements
the regulations for the protection of human
subjects
Fundamental Provisions of
45 CFR Part 46, Subpart A
•
Assurance of Compliance
•
IRB requirements
•
Legally effective informed
consent
Assurance of Compliance (1)
Each institution engaged in research
covered by 45 CFR part 46 and which
is conducted or supported by HHS
shall provide assurance satisfactory
to the HHS Secretary that it will
comply with the requirements set
forth in 45 CFR part 46 [45 CFR
46.103(a)].
Assurance of Compliance (2)
•
•
•
•
Statement of principles governing
institution in the discharge of its
responsibilities for protecting the
rights and welfare of human subjects
Designation of one or more IRBs
List of IRB members
Written IRB procedures
[45 CFR 46.103(b)]
What is an IRB?
Independent panel conducts review of
proposed research, to protect the rights and
welfare of participants
–
At least 5 members, both genders
–
Diversity and appropriate expertise
–
Varied professions
Scientists
Non-scientists
–
At least one unaffiliated member
–
Sensitive to community attitudes
–
Knowledge of vulnerable populations
–
Ad hoc consultants
IRB Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
Membership
Functions and operations
Review of research (initial and
continuing)
Expedited review procedures
Criteria for IRB approval
Records
[45 CFR 46.107-111]
IRB Review and Approval (46.111)
This section of the regulations provides the
criteria for IRB approval of research. It includes
requirements, such as:
- risks to subjects are minimized,
- risks are in relation to anticipated benefits,
- selection of subjects is equitable,
- informed consent will be sought from each
subject, and will be appropriately documented,
45 CFR 46 – IRB Composition
At least 5 members
Quorum = more than half
Varying backgrounds
One member nonscientific (required
for quorum)
One member not affiliated
No individual conflict of interest
45 CFR 46 – IRB Duties
Review and approve, require
modifications (for approval), or disapprove
research
Require informed consent and
documentation as required by regulations
Notify investigator in writing
Continuing review at intervals appropriate
to degree of risk (at least annually)
45 CFR 46 – IRB Approval Criteria
Risks to subjects minimized
Risks to subjects reasonable in relation to
– anticipated direct benefit
– knowledge to be gained
Selection of subjects equitable
Informed consent sought and documented
Appropriate provisions for monitoring safety
Provisions to protect privacy & confidentiality
Additional safeguards for vulnerable populations
UI Investigator’s Guide Chapter 6, Section F
Types of IRB Review
1) Determination if human
subjects research
2) Exempt
3) Expedited Review
4) Full Committee Review
IRB Review and Approval (46.111)
This section of the regulations provides the
criteria for IRB approval of research. It
includes requirements, such as:
-
risks to subjects are minimized,
-
risks are in relation to anticipated benefits,
-
selection of subjects is equitable,
-
informed consent will be sought from each
subject, and will be appropriately documented,
IRB Review and Approval (46.111)
(cont’d)
This section of the regulations provides the
criteria for IRB approval of research. It
includes requirements, such as:
-
the research plan makes adequate provision
for monitoring of data,
-
adequate provisions for privacy/confidentiality
of subjects,
-
when subjects are likely to be vulnerable –
adequate safeguards have been included
45 CFR 46 – Vulnerable
Populations
Subpart D – Children
–
No greater than minimal risk – one signature may
be sufficient
–
Greater than minimal risk, prospect of direct benefit
– one signature may be sufficient
–
Greater than minimal risk, no prospect of direct
benefit, likely to yield knowledge about
condition/disorder – two signatures
–
None of above, but opportunity to understand,
prevent, alleviate serious problem affecting
health/welfare of children – two signatures
UI Investigator’s Guide, Chapter 8, Section C
Methods of Assuring Confidentiality
•
Gather data anonymously
•
Strip off identifiers
•
Certificates of confidentiality
•
Data brokering
•
Encryption of data stored online
•
“Ethical proofreading” of qualitative descriptions
•
Statistical methods
•
Inter-file linkage
•
Error inoculation
•
Top coding
BPS Ethical Principles for Conducting
Research with Human Participants 1
Respect and consideration for participants:
● (Informed) Consent
● provision of information about, e.g.
• objectives of study (ensure promises realistic)
• what is required of participants
● competence of potential participants
● freedom to give voluntary consent
● Deception
● to be avoided if possible
● Debriefing
● to complete participant understanding
BPS Professional Code of Conduct (2000)
British Psychological Society
Competence
– maintain and develop, recognise and work
within limits
Consent
– obtain valid and informed consent of participants
Confidentiality
– maintain adequate records but preserve
confidentiality of information
Personal Conduct
– behave professionally, not damaging clients or
undermining public confidence
Researcher Safety and Well-Being
Physical safety (re accident, illness,
violence)
–
–
–
–
Lone and night working
Travel
Dangerous working conditions
Organisational procedures
Psychological well-being
– Exposure to distressing information
– Harassment, intimidation, etc.
Reputation
– Unsuitable or illegal situations
BPS Ethical Principles for Conducting
Research with Human Participants 2
● Withdrawal from the investigation
● during procedure or subsequently
● Confidentiality
● Protection of participants
● from physical/psychological harm in
procedures
● from exacerbating pre-existing conditions
● Observational research
● Giving advice
● Colleagues
Data Protection
Obtaining data
– Legitimate interest (limited to requirements)
– Consent (informed as to storage, use, etc.)
Processing and storing
– Manual or electronic
– Security
Disclosing
– Awareness, security, permission
Deleting or archiving
– Period, reason, security
Informed Consent
Participants should not be:
– Physically harmed
– Psychologically harmed
– Forced to participate, or be unreasonably
compelled to participate
Levels of Risk to Participants
No risk – anonymous educational testing,
observing public behavior, studying publicly
available documents, etc.
Minimal risk – taking recordings using
physical sensors, having healthy volunteers
doing moderate exercise, doing research on
such topics as perception, cognition, etc.
More than minimal risk – research involving
deception and debriefing, collecting
confidential responses regarding potentially
embarrassing behaviors, etc.
Courses for Instructors
Kenneth Pimple, Poynter Center, Indiana
University
Teaching Research Ethics
http://poynter.indiana.edu/tre
4 days
Websites
ORI
http://ori.hhs.gov
RCR Education Products
– General Subject
Areas
– Authorship and
– Human Subjects Publication
– Peer Review
– Animal Subjects
– Collaboration
– Data Management
– Mentoring
– Conflicts of Interest
– Research Misconduct
Points for Discussion
Publications
Accountability in Research
http://www.tandf.co.uk/jo
urnals/titles/08989621.a
sp
“The journal publishes original
empirical, methodological,
policy
and theoretical papers, cases
studies, conference reports and
book reviews that address
issues
of integrity and accountability in
research.”
Publications
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
http://www.csueastbay.edu/JERHRE
The Journal “publishes empirical
research and reviews of empirical
literature on human research
ethics…In addition, JERHRE
seeks to create collaboration
among institutions and
researchers concerned about the
responsible conduct of research.”
Courses
RCREC Internet Course
http://rcrec.org/resources
Responsible Conduct of Research
Internet Instruction
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Animal Subjects
Human Subjects
Data Management
Conflicts of Interest
Authorship
Publication and Peer Review
Collaboration and Mentoring
Research Misconduct
Courses
Columbia Internet Tutorials
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr
Web-based RCR Tutorials
– Data Management
– Conflicts of Interest
– Authorship and Peer Review
– Collaboration
– Mentoring
– Research Misconduct
Courses
CITI:
Collaborative Institutional Training
Initiative
http://www.citiprogram.org
RCR Course to be released soon
Guidance
The Belmont Report
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines.php3
The Nuremberg Code
http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/irb/irb_appendices.htm#j5
NIH online training
Human Participant Protections Education for Research
Teams
http://cme.nci.nih.gov/
Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)
http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/
OHRP Website
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/
Check website for guidance on many
different ethical and regulatory
considerations.
Guidance
Institutional Review Board Guidebook
http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/irb/irb_guidebook.htm
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for the
Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects at NIH
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines.php3
National Science Foundation (NSF) Behavioral and
Cognitive Sciences
http://www.nsf.gov/search97cgi/vtopic
National Science Foundation (NSF) The Common Rule
http://www.nsf.gov/search97cgi/vtopic