(Ethics in Researchs) Ensuring That Research Is Ethical
Making decisions about the ethics of research involves weighing the costs and benefits of conducting versus not conducting a given research project. We have seen that these costs involve potential harm to the research participants, and to the fi eld, whereas the benefi ts include knowledge about human behavior and educational gains to the individual participants. Most generally, the ethics of a given research project are determined through a cost-benefi t analysis, in which the costs are compared to the benefits. If the potential costs of the research appear to outweigh any potential benefi ts that might come from it, then the research should not proceed.
Of course, arriving at a cost-benefi t ratio is not simple. For one thing, there is no way to know ahead of time what the effects of a given procedure will be on every person or animal who participates or what benefi t to society the research is likely to produce. In addition, what is ethical is defined by the current state of thinking within society, and thus costs and benefits change over time. Consider, for instance, a classic experiment by Aronson and Mills (1959) investigating the hypothesis that individuals who underwent a severe initiation in order to be admitted to a group would later have greater attraction to the group than to individuals who had not been so initiated.
Female undergraduates were told that they would subsequently be joining a discussion group on the “psychology of sex.” In some of the conditions, participants were asked if they would be embarrassed to talk about sex. If they answered no, they were admitted to the group. But in the “severe initiation” condition, participants were told that they had to prove that they could discuss sex frankly, and they were asked to read aloud (to the male experimenter) a list of twelve obscene words and two vivid descriptions of sexual activity from contemporary novels before joining the group.
Because today’s standards are different than they were in 1959, such an experiment would probably be perceived by most as a violation of ethical principles. Society no longer considers it appropriate for a powerful male experimenter to require a less powerful female undergraduate to talk about sexual behavior in his presence. Although the women were given the choice of not participating, it was most certainly diffi cult for them to do so, as they would have lost their experimental credit as well as the time they had spent signing up for and reporting to the experiment.
One interesting tack on determining the cost-benefi t ratio is to assess it empirically. One approach (Berscheid, Baron, Dermer, & Libman, 1973) is to describe the research project in its entirety to a separate group of individuals who are similar to potential participants and inquire whether they would participate. Alternatively, the research could be described and people asked to rate the potential costs to participants (Schlenker & Forsyth, 1977). Again, potential participants do not seem to perceive most research as unethical. In fact, students generally rate the potential benefi ts as greater than the costs and estimate a lower cost-benefi t ratio than do the scientists conducting the research!
The Institutional Review Board
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations require that all universities receiving funds from the department set up an institutional review board (IRB) to determine whether proposed research meets department regulations. The IRB consists of at least fi ve members, including, in addition to scientists, at least one individual whose primary interest is in nonscientifi c domains (for instance, a community member, a religious leader, or a legal specialist) and at least one member who is not affi liated with the institution at which the research is to be conducted. This composition ensures that the group represents a variety of areas of expertise, not just other scientists, who may tend to overrate the importance of scientific research.
All federally funded research, and almost all university research that is not federally funded, must be approved by the IRB. To gain approval, the scientist submits a written application to the IRB requesting permission to conduct research. This proposal must include a description of the experimental procedure and, if the research uses human participants, an explanation of how informed consent will be obtained and how the participants will be debriefed.
In addition, the application must detail any potential risks to the participants, as well as the potential benefi ts to be gained from the research. The basic goal of the IRB is to determine, on the basis of the research description, the cost-benefi t ratio of a study. The IRB may suggest modifi cations to the procedure or (in rare cases) may inform the scientist that the research violates Department of Health and Human Services guidelines and thus cannot be conducted at the university. A similar committee, the animal care and use committee, makes decisions about animal research and ensures that animals used in research are treated in a humane manner. Board members conduct regular inspections of all of the animal labs at the institution to be certain that the animals are healthy and free from stress and that the research is conducted in accordance with appropriate guidelines.
The Researcher’s Own Ethics
Despite the possibility of empirical assessment of ethical questions and the availability of institutional guidelines, because questions of scientifi c ethics are at heart issues of personal value, each person must draw her or his own conclusions about what is right and what is wrong in scientifi c research. Thus, the ultimate responsibility lies with the investigator. Unfortunately, there is no single method for anticipating and alleviating all the possible ethical problems that can arise in the conduct of behavioral research. Rather, what is involved is an attempt to fi nd an appropriate balance between the rights and dignity of the research participants and the importance of continuing scientific inquiry.
Overall, when the proper safeguards are followed, the rights and dignity of human participants are generally upheld. Yet, each research project has to be evaluated in terms of potential ethical problems. Sometimes alternative procedures can be used; at other times the study must be canceled. When in doubt, consult with instructors or colleagues and others outside of the field. In many cases, the IRB at your university will be the fi nal judge of the ethics of your research.
Correctly and Honestly Reporting Research Results
Although to this point we have focused on the safety, rights, and dignity of the research participant, ethical behavior in science includes honesty not only in conducting research, but also in reporting it and giving proper credit for ideas. Science is based on truth, and scientists are expected to be truthful in all aspects of their research. In this sense, the rules are simple—report exactly what you did and what you discovered in your research. Do not lie or mislead the reader in any way. The methods of the research should be completely and fully described, and the statistical analyses reported accurately. According to American Psychology Association guidelines, scientists are also obligated to publish corrections to existing publications if they later discover signifi cant errors in them. Furthermore, scientists are obligated to interpret their data as fairly as they can. Remember that it is completely appropriate to use the work of others as a basis for your research—but do not plagiarize. When you have taken ideas from others, be certain to appropriately cite the sources of the work.
Although we can assume that most scientists are honest, they are nevertheless only human, and therefore, some errors will occasionally be made. In some cases, mistakes are made because the scientist is not careful about how he or she collects and analyzes data. For instance, errors may be made in key-punching the data or in the process of conducting the statistical analyses. It is, therefore, extremely important that researchers check their data carefully to be sure that their statistical analyses are correct. Some suggestions for ensuring that data are analyzed correctly can be found in Appendix B of this book.
In rare cases, a scientist may intentionally alter or fabricate data, and in such cases we say that he or she has committed scientific fraud. Although scientific fraud does not happen very often, it is a very serious event when it does occur, because it can lead people to adopt unwise social policies on the basis of the fraudulent data, or can lead scientists to spend time conducting follow-up research that is based on invalid knowledge.
Because scientific fraud is so costly, scientists are naturally concerned to prevent its occurrence. The most effective route is for each scientist to take full responsibility for his or her research and to carefully monitor the behavior of his or her co-workers. Fortunately, most scientists do not want to commit fraud, because if they do so they know that their research results will not be able to be replicated by others, and, as we will see in Chapter 12, it is this replication that leads to scientific progress.
