More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of ethics in research
Advantages and disadvantages of ethics in research
Essay about ethical considerations in research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Ethics, though sometimes overlooked, are an integral part in conducting proper research. Though the primary goal of the researcher may be to find answers that support his hypothesis—particularly, positive results that successfully can apply to the general population—maintaining ethical conditions is also just as important, if not more. Some of the most infamous studies that have occurred in the social sciences field throughout the years were ones that raised ethical concerns. One such study is known as the Landis Facial Expression Study that was conducted in 1924 by Carney Landis, who was a graduate student in psychology at the University of Minnesota at the time.
Initially, Landis’ experiment to discover whether all humans are prone to project the same facial expressions that coincide with such emotions as surprise, happiness, anger, and disgust after being exposed to different situations seemed pretty harmless. In order to test his experiment, Landis brought in some of his fellow graduate students into a laboratory and drew marks on their faces, so that their facial expressions could be made more visible when presented with different stimuli. At first, Landis’ subjects were presented with a variety of strange, but relatively mild tasks that they were asked to do that included smelling ammonia, watching pornography, and putting their hand into a bucket containing frogs. While completing the tasks, Landis would take pictures of the students to take note of their reactions. The controversy, though, existed in the last task that Landis’ had his subjects complete, which involved decapitating a live rat so that the facial expression for disgust could be recorded. Unsurprisingly, many resisted. However, after being told to do so many...
... middle of paper ...
...cular emotion. Assuming that the two-thirds felt as if they were forced to do something that they really did not want to do, their facial expression could have portrayed more than just disgust. In other words, the reason why there was not a universal facial expression for disgust could have been as a result of Landis’ coercion, which could have contributed to feelings of anger, sadness, etc.
Ultimately, I feel that the benefits in this study did not outweigh the ethical problems that existed in the study. The premise of Landis’ study was quite simple and practical and could have been carried out easily without any type of harm done. In fact any of the emotions that he was trying to study could have all been represented if he presented the subjects’ with more normal kinds of stimuli. Perhaps, in doing so, Landis could have found more universal facial expressions.
This conclusion was disproved from Milgram’s experiment. The majority of the subjects obeyed the experimenter to the end. There were several reactions to the experiment. Some people showed signs of tension or stress, others laughed, and some showed no signs of discomfort throughout the experiment. Subjects often felt satisfaction by obeying the experimenter.
This created an atmosphere where the teacher thought he was really inflicting pain on another individual, which was highly stressful for the volunteers. I definitely think that our current generation of 20 and 50 year old males are more inclined to question authority than the group from 1962. Ethics This experiment is relevant to an ethics course because putting individuals in this type of experiment is traumatic and can cause a high level of stress and unnecessary pain for the volunteer. The volunteers were deceived by the study, believing that they were actually harming another person, and there was potential to cause psychological harm, which is unethical (McLeod, 2007).
... understand the motives behind dehumanization and possible cause of dehumanization, and clearly the benefits of this research outweighed, if any, harm done to the participants. There was no real deception involved in this experiment. The participants were given informed consent. The instructions were clear, though they did not know what the experimenters were looking for; nonetheless I did not observe any true deception involved in this experiment. The participants were all debriefed at the end of the experiments, and seeing this, the experiments were clearly all ethical.
In the United States, the basis for ethical protection for human research subjects in clinical research trials are outlined by the Belmont Report developed in the late 1970’s. This document, published by the Nation Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, highlights three important basic principles that are to be considered when any clinical trial will involve human research subjects. They are; respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. (Chadwick & Gunn, 2004)
According to APA’s guidelines, John Watson’s “Little Albert” study would not be allowed today because of ethical violations. One ethical violation is the lack of consent from the subject. Little Albert could never give consent because he was an infant. Watson took advantage of the fact that Albert could not tell people that he wanted to withdraw from the study. Participants should always know what the study will involve and what risks might develop.
Abortion has been a political, social, and personal topic for many years now. The woman’s right to choose has become a law that is still debated, argued and fought over, even though it has been passed. This paper will examine a specific example where abortion is encouraged, identify the Christian world views beliefs and resolution as well as the consequences of such, and compare them with another option.
Fellow psychologists pointed out whether the welfare of the participants was thought of in the experiment (Brace and Byford). Levels of stress endured by the participants were viewed by some to be excessive and the experiment shoulder been stopped. In the cause of Hofling, such anxiety was not reported. However, both cases used some form of deception towards the participants which would be questioned extensively today. In addition, the right for the participant to stop the experiment by Milgram was not exercised because of prompts to continue the experiment. Some argue the both Milgram and Hofling studies could have caused psychological harm. Both studies of obedience by Milgram and Hofling have had similar critique regarding the ethics of the trials. Psychologists of today would have viewed theses studies as unethical and indeed, would have questioned its validity. (Brace and
To sum things up, the ethical demeanor of research involves respect for the safety and rights of subjects during the sequence of the trial. This includes protecting privacy and confidentiality, monitoring the condition of research subjects to assure their safety, terminating study participation in the case of hostile events, and notifying enrolled subjects about new risks, benefits, or other information that may bear upon subjects’ decisions to continue enrollment in the research. As new evidence shows itself, trial investigators and data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) can alter the study plan, initiate notice of enrolled subjects, make changes to the informed consent policies, or stop the trials earlier than intended. Investigators should soon classify a technique for ensuring effective communication between the IRB and DSMB throughout these studies.
I have presented the dispute between advocates and skeptics regarding the disgust emotion and its place in morality. In presenting Kelly’s view, I have given explanation for why he takes the stance he does, and why believes his view to disprove the advocate’s arguments. In concluding, I offered a line of argument that I think may give support for the advocate stance, even in light of Kelly’s criticisms. However, ultimately, I side with Kelly’s arguments and maintain that disgust simply has no place in the realm of moral judgment.
In Marcia Angell’s article, “The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third World,” she strongly argues the use of clinical placebo-controlled trials done in developing countries are unethical if an effective treatment already exists. Angell believes studies that compare potential new treatment with a placebo controlled group is ineffective and unnecessary. All research studies should offer the best standard of care and give participants the most beneficial outcome and treatment possible. The main priority of a study is not the goals of the research itself, but the well-being of the participants. Angell uses many sources to defend her argument, such as WHO.
1. Capp, Marshall B. "Ethical and Legal Issues in Research Involving Human Subjects: Do You Want a Piece of Me? -- Kapp 59 (4): 335 -- Journal of Clinical Pathology." BMJ Journals. J Clin Pathol, 18 Jan. 2006. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
The Monster study is speech impediment experiment that was done on the children that lived in the orphanage. This experiment was conducted to find out if stuttering was inherited or did environment play a key factor. Wendell Johnson was the speech pathologist that conducted this study to find the cause and cure for stuttering. This study violated a lot of ethical issues because the children were psychological harm, informed consent was not given and the subjects were deceived. Wendell Johnson had a biased opinion in this study because he was a stutter himself and was desperate for a cure. In this paper, I will discuss the background of this experiment and the violations of ethics that were done in this study.
Deception is sometimes used by researchers when they conduct psychological experiments. Deception occurs when the participant is misled about the purpose, design, of the experiment, or when the researcher uses deliberate misleading to persuade the subject into believing a certain view (McLeod). Many people believe deception is ethically wrong, and psychologists should not use it to obtain important information. I believe psychologists should be able to use deception if the participant is not psychologically harmed. It is believed that deception is the only way we can obtain true information (Connolly). The knowledge we are able to obtain about psychological tendencies outweighs the temporary effects of deception.
In the real world, this experiment has a lot of examples that should be taken note of. For example, communication as a whole has much more of an affect on us than we are willing to admit. From this article alone, we can see that it can help to alleviate pain and help to soothe patients. Just simply from having better nonverbal communication skills, the impact on others is
In this case, the psychologist is presented with several ethical issues which could cause harm to the client. The first ethical issue that arose in this case is the potential for a role conflict. The psychologist and Mr. Hartwig had contact prior to the development of a therapeutic relationship when the psychologist bought a car from Mr. Hartwig. It may not be enough that the brief, informal relationship ended. The psychologist must assess the dimensions of the previous relationship from the viewpoint of the client as well as his/her own personal feelings (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2008). For example, the client could feel that he gave the psychologist a good deal and that the psychologist was indebted to him. This could leave the psychologist vulnerable to being manipulated by the client. Or, what if the car broke down? This could leave the psychologist feeling cheated and resulted in hostile feelings toward the client. The psychologist has an ethical responsibility to examine both relationships for role incompatibility prior to forming a therapeutic relationship. The psychologist seemed to be aware that there was the potential role conflict resulting from their initial meeting, and he acted ethically by attempting to refer Mr. Hartwig to a Psychology Registry.