Trends 4:4 (September 1997)

The Messenger under Attack: Intimidation of Researchers by Special-Interest Groups

An Impromptu Session on Research Ethics

Last summer, in the midst of the TRE Workshop, I received an invitation via e-mail to make a presentation on research ethics for an undergraduate research seminar in Psychology here at IU. I do not like meeting with students for one meeting only; it does not give us a chance to get to know each other and build the kind of trust and mutual respect that are so helpful when talking about ethics. In spite of this, I did meet with the seminar and did my best to make it a worthwhile experience for all of us. I thought some of my improvisations might be of interest and future use to readers of Trends.

Here's the invitation I received, lightly edited:

I'm leading the psychology undergraduate research seminar this summer and am hoping that you could come speak to the class about research ethics. Each of the 7 students is working in a research lab full-time for the rest of the summer and this seminar is to teach them about important aspects of research such as ethics, funding, and applying for graduate school. Peter Finn [a colleague in Psychology who has worked with the Poynter Center in the past] suggested that I ask you to come for one of the seminars. The seminar meets on Wednesday mornings from 10 to 11:30 and I have the dates of July 9, 16 and 23 open. Would you be willing to come talk to the class on one of these days? Also, it would be great if you could assign a reading or two that would be appropriate for these students. Thank you, Katherine Hooper

About the topic: these students are doing work in psychology and neuroscience. Dr. Rebec will come talk about the use of animals, so it won't be necessary to cover that. I'd like you to talk about some general ethical considerations about being a scientist (e.g., scientific fraud) and then some about using human subjects. Some of the students do work with children, so if you want to say anything about that, it might be good. I don't know a lot about teaching research ethics, so I'd like to leave it up to you to choose the most relevant topics. How does this sound?

To prepare for the session on research ethics on July 23, please write a response to each of the following questions. Your response does not have to be long (about 50-100 words will be fine) and it will not be graded.

Please send your responses via e-mail NO LATER THAN NOON, TUESDAY, JULY 22 to Katherine Hooper and Kenneth D. Pimple, who will be leading the session.

1. Why are you majoring in psychology?
2. What research are you doing this summer? What research do you hope to do in the future?
3. Why do you think precious class time is being used to discuss research ethics?
4. What questions or concerns do you have about the responsible conduct of research (a.k.a. research ethics)?

It took me about an hour or two to find materials that I thought would be helpful. I would have simply sent the students the URLs for the assignments if I had known them and had faith that they would actually look at the documents on their own. To play it safe, I printed out the pages I wanted them to read, failing to see any ethical difference between having each student print the pages for him or herself and my printing and copying the pages for the whole class.

Keeping a copy for myself, I sent the readings and a cover memo to Dr. Hooper. The memo reiterated the e-mail assignment (above) and described the reading assignment as follows.

1. On Being a Scientist home page/table of contents (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/) -- for reference .
2. Selections from On Being a Scientist -- Please read and be prepared to discuss.
1. "Values in Science" and "Polywater and the Role of Skepticism" (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/contents/values.html).
2. "Misconduct in Science," "Fabrication in a Grant Application," and "A Case of Plagiarism" (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/contents/misconduct.html) and commentaries on "Fabrication in a Grant Application" and "A Case of Plagiarism" (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/contents/appendix.html#Plagiarism).
3. "Avoiding Self-Deception in Science" (http://www.onlineethics.org/text/reseth/msself.html) -- Please read and be prepared to discuss.
4. "Declaration of Helsinki" (http://www.faseb.org/arvo/helsinki.htm) -- Please answer the following:
1. Part I, "Basic Principles," could be sub-divided in several different ways. One way to group the principles is as follows: 1-3 and 8; 4-7; 9-12. How would you subtitle each of these three groupings (e.g., what's the basic theme of each group)?
2. Which statements in Part I and Part III are particularly relevant to psychological research involving children?
5. "Resources in Ethics" (http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/links.html) -- for reference.
6. "Ethical Issues in the Conduct of Classic Studies in Psychology" (http://onlineethics.org/reseth/psychindex.html) -- for reference.

I took their answers to the fourth question ("What questions or concerns do you have about the responsible conduct of research (a.k.a. research ethics)?") and prepared a handout for discussion. (More on this below.)

The day of the class, I wanted to get the students thinking and talking right off the bat, so I devised the following exercise. I asked everyone (including Dr. Hooper) to write two statements of the form, "In research in psychology, X is (un)ethical." They were to provide X and the two statements could take any combination of forms (both ethical, both unethical, one of each). When they had written their two statements, I asked them to mark one of the two, giving them no criterion for selecting. Then I told them that everyone was going to read X from the marked statement, without indicating whether they thought it was ethical or unethical. Once all the statements were on the board, we took a vote on each one. For the first I told them that I would not take any abstentions, but they talked me into allowing them to abstain from number 2 on. The following table shows roughly what we had on the board at the end of this exercise.
 

A	E	U	A = abstain; E= ethical; U = unethical
0	0	9	purposefully administer ineffective treatment
1	8	0	animal experimentation
1	1	7	become less sensitive to the pain or suffering of animal subjects over time
0	9	0	brain research
0	0	9	not inform human research subjects of risks
0	0	9	make up a few extra data points, even if they are consistent with findings so far
4	3	2	experiment on children with their consent and the consent of their parent or guardian, but without a full explanation of the research
2	0	7	causing stress without follow-up therapy
0	0	9	fabricate results to match your hypothesis

There was actually not as much disagreement as I hoped there would be, but we had an interesting discussion based on these statements nonetheless. In the course of our discussion, we noticed that the items on which we generally agreed were ethical were also quite broad and vague -- like "animal experimentation" and "brain research." I suggested that we could all imagine instances of brain research that we would find unethical, and no one disagreed. We also noticed that many of the statement which we generally agreed were unethical posed real temptations to researchers. For the one statement with the lowest degree of consensus ("experiment on children with their consent and the consent of their parent or guardian, but without a full explanation of the research"), disagreement turned on interpretations of the word "explanation." We all agreed that failing to explain some things (like real potential risks) would make the research unethical, but explaining some other things (like all of the subtle implications of the working hypothesis) probably wouldn't.

After this exercise, which did break the ice, I handed out their own concerns about research ethics, as follows.

1. What are the professional consequences of unethical research? How are scientists today reviewed for unethical conduct?
2. I suppose that most of my concerns about research ethics revolve around deceiving subjects about experiment objectives.
3. I was concerned about animal research but that was cleared up during the last session. The important point for me is that research is overseen and that regulations are actually enforced. Although I've personally dealt with the human subjects committee and I know what a tedious application process is involved, I still think it is important to go through that process. It bothers me when I get the impression from certain researchers that their research is too important or their judgment too sound to make this process necessary. I think that by applying for grants or human subjects approval, a researcher justifies the research so that the procedures foster quality as well.
4. I am concerned with the categorization of different types of animal research. Strict laws concerning vertebrates but not invertebrates, etc. I find it hard to believe that a simple animal is less concerned with preserving its integrity than a highly intelligent, complex animal.
5. What most concerns me about ethics in research is this: who are the people who determine what is "ethical," on what do they base their decisions, and finally is it good for science? Certainly I find nothing wrong with standards, but I feel that perhaps we might be going overboard. I mean, you can kill all the invertebrates you like with little concern from anyone, but if you harm a cute little fuzzy wabbit, you'd better have a really good reason. Does this make sense? Does the presence of backbone really endow a creature with certain inalienable rights, while the absence thereof dooms an octopus (an animal with the supposed cognitive abilities of a three year old human) to a "rightless" existence? And if you're going to draw arbitrary lines like this, are other equally senseless lines being drawn for the treatment of animal and human subjects? Are these ethical guidelines good for the animals and science in general, or do they serve primarily to make us feel good about ourselves?

The most important things to know about research ethics.

Kenneth D. Pimple, Ph.D.

1. Be honest and do good science.
2. Know the conventions, policies, regulations, and laws relevant to your field of study and follow them.
3. If you ever think, "Well, I can do X because no one will ever know the difference or no one will ever find out," stop. This is a red flag and you are probably contemplating doing something unethical.
4. If you ever think, "I know/suspect it's unethical, but I've got to do it; I don't have any choice," stop. This is another red flag. Before you act, do this exercise. First, ask yourself what will happen if you don't do what you think you have to. Does the world come to an end? Do you die? Probably not. Then imagine that the unethical act you are tempted to do is impossible, for whatever reason, and think of three other actions you can take. One of them is bound to be ethical. It might not be as easy as the unethical course, but once you've identified it you can find the courage to follow through on it.
5. If you see someone acting in a way that you think is unethical, try not to jump to conclusions. Treat it as a scientific question -- gather data, observe carefully, and keep notes. Gathering data might include asking the person to clarify what's going on. You may have a responsibility to report misconduct, but you also have a responsibility to yourself and the person you suspect to have a clear idea of what's really going on.
6. You are not in this alone. There are always people you can ask for advice. The feeling that there is no one who can help you think it through is another red flag; this one indicates that you need to take a deep breath and put things into perspective.

My sense was that the session was well accepted and productive. Dr. Hooper told me so in an e-mail message afterward, anyway. But the best commendation came a few weeks later when one of the students sent me an e-mail message asking if I were going to teach a course on research ethics, and if not, if I could oversee an independent study for him on the topic. I think that shows I got through to at least one person.