Ethics in Experimental
Research
Showing concern for the welfare
of human subjects
Horror Stories
Tuskegee syphilis study of 1932
Stanley Milgram’s conformity research of
1963
commercially funded, “for profit”
research (2001): conflicts of interest and
the “file drawer” problem
Pharmaceutical manufacturers
“outsourcing” drug trials to poor
countries with lax standards (2004)
U.S. energy Dept. and radiation tests on
civilians (1970’s)
LSD and the CIA’s MK Ultra program
(1973)
Radioactive oatmeal!
More than 100 boys living
in an orphanage were fed
Quaker Oats with
radioactive iron and
calcium in the 1950's.
The diet was part of an
experiment to prove that
the nutrients in Quaker
oatmeal travel throughout
the body.
A class action settlement
for $1.85 million was
reached in 1998
The atomic veterans
During and after WWII,
American soldiers were
forced to observe
nuclear blasts within 50
miles of ground zero.
Thousands of these
soldiers later died of
leukemia and other
rare forms of cancer.
Their families were
barred from suing the
federal government
Wendell Johnson’s diagnosogenic
theory of stuttering
“The Monster Study”
In 1938, Wendell Johnson and Mary
Tudor trained orphans to be more
conscious of small speech errors.
Johnson’s theory was that punishing
fluency errors made them worse.
All five stutterers in the test group
showed increased stuttering; five out of
six of the normal children exhibited
worse fluency.
The experiment, referred to by some as
the “Monster Experiment” turned some
of the children into lifelong stutterers
despite later efforts to reverse the
damage.
Cloning Fraud
2005: South Korean
researcher, Woo Suk
Hwang, fabricated
evidence that he had
successfully cloned
human embryos.
The journal Science,
retracted two studies he
had published.
Outsourcing clinical trials
The price of bringing a new
drug to market is about $1
million per day
Much of that cost is devoted to
human clinical trials
western drug makers are
outsourcing safety and efficacy
studies to developing
countries, a large proportion of
them to India and Russia.
There are currently some 400
clinical trials underway in India
Ethical matrix for social science
research
Good ends
Bad ends
Good means
Ethical
research
Bad means
Machiavellian
research
Subjective
ethic
(backfires)
Unethical
research
Belmont report
Autonomy:


Free-choice, no pressure to participate,
consideration of “at risk” groups or individuals
persons with diminished autonomy
Beneficence:

“do no harm,” ensure the well-being of
participants
Justice:



fair distribution of risks and benefits of research
subject recruitment, selection
subject compensation
How common is research
misconduct?
“More than 1 percent of scientists report
direct knowledge of an instance of
misconduct.” Elliot (2000). How prevalent is
fraud? That’s a multi-million dollar question.
Science, 290, pp. 1662-1663
Motivations include
 tenure and promotion
 pressure to “publish or perish”
 lucrative grants, patents
 fame, notoriety, prestige
Fraud in scientific research
Intentional fraud


Cyril Burt’s research on
monozygotic twins—
fudging the results of IQ
tests
William Summerlin’s
cancer research—faked
results of tumor
shrinkage
Unintentional fraud


Weitzman’s research on
women's and men's
incomes following
divorce—blamed
“computer error” for
erroneous results
Pons and Fleischmann's
research on “cold”
fusion—couldn’t be
replicated by other
researchers
No harm to the participants
minimizing psychological
risks

Example: simulations that
accentuate racist, sexist, or
homophobic attitudes
minimizing physical risks

Example: behavioral
psychologists’ penchant for
shocking subjects in the
60’s and 70’s
showing concern for the
welfare of participants

Example: Stanley Milgram’s
conformity research
Voluntary informed consent
Before conducting any research using
human participants, a participant’s voluntary
informed consent must first be obtained:



Voluntary: the subject willingly agrees to participate in
the study, and is free to withdraw at any time without
penalty
Informed: the subject is aware of any risks (physical or
psychological) associated with participating
Consent: the subject’s consent is unambiguous, e.g., a
signed permission form (no such things as “implied
consent”)
Exceptions to the consent
requirement
Low-risk anonymous survey
Observations gathered in
public places
Information in the public
domain
Failure to obtain informed
consent
Kinch’s study on the “Pygmalion effect”
Problems associated with using freshman in
experimental research


Can students under 18 legally give their consent?
Should participation in experiments be a course
requirement?
Ethics of participant-observation

Going “under cover” to study groups may violate
their rate to privacy
Deception and the use of
cover stories
Elms (1982) recommends the following strictures for
the use of deception in experimental research:
 As a last resort: When there is no other feasible
way to obtain the desired information
 example: studies on student cheating

When the benefits substantially outweigh the risks
 example: controlled double-blind studies on drug efficacy



When subjects are given the option to withdraw at
any time, without penalty
When any physical or psychological harm is
temporary
When subjects are debriefed and the research
procedures are made available for public review
Privacy concerns
Humphrey’s (1970) “tea
room” trade research
Personnel action—
failure to ensure
anonymity
Incest case—failure to
remove identifying
information
Anonymity: no one
including the
experimenter can match
the data to specific
individuals
Confidentiality: the
experimenter knows
participants’ identities
but takes steps to
protect participant’s
privacy.
Standards governing social
science research
at the department level
 Human Subjects Committees
at the university level:
 Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
professional associations
 American Psychological Association’s
“Ethical Guidelines”
 Code of Ethics” of the American Speech
Hearing and Language Association
Debriefing participants
Dehoaxing:

undoing the cover story and revealing the true
purpose of the investigation
Desensitizing:

addressing any lingering psychological or
emotional concerns associated with participating
in the investigation
Explaining the benefits of participation to
subjects
Thanking subjects and providing for future
contact if necessary
Treating participants with
respect and dignity
the “subjects” versus
“participants” controversy
avoiding “isms” in research;
sexism, racism, ethnocentrism,
ageism, etc.
ethics of withholding treatment
from control groups