Chapter 3 Ethical Treatment of Research Participants

Michael J. Walk

Research Methods

20 February 2007

Chapter 3 Discussion Questions

Chapter 3 Ethical Treatment of Research Participants

1. Is it important, from an ethical standpoint, to debrief even when deception was not employed?

Yes, it is important to defried participants even if deception was not employed in the research. This educates the participant about their involvement in scientific research and the benefit they have provided to science and society. In fact, this education may be the only benefit that the research provides to the participants.

However, if the debriefing itself might impose some harm, NOT conducting the debriefing may be more beneficial to participants.

1. Is surreptitious observation of elevator riders an unethical use of surveillance?

I would argue that it is not unethical. First, an elevator, though an enclosed and somewhat private space, is, indeed, a public space. Subjects in an elevator are implicitly consenting to be observed by others by simply being there and behaving in public. When that behavior is recorded, however, is really when ethical questions arise. But although not all scientists agree whether or not this “naturalistic recording” is ethical, I think it is. It poses no harm to the subjects.

1. Is it ethical to conduct research on elderly demented patients if consent is given by their power of attorney?

It depends on the amount of benefits that will be provided by the research. If that research can provide some outcome that may benefit other elderly demented patients (or even the subjects themselves), then it may be ethical research.

1. Give an example of conducting research when the cost is higher for doing it than not doing it, and another in which the cost is higher for NOT doing it.

Cost is higher for doing it than not: Ah, this reminds me of a proposed undergraduate research project in my social psychology class. The proposal was to study the type of altruism that involves protecting the belongings of a stranger. The research would involve two confederates in a public setting. One would ask a randomly chosen participant to briefly watch his or her belongings while he or she went away to run a quick errand. While the first confederate was gone, the second confederate was to come a surreptitiously filch what the subject was being asked to watch. We were then going to record the reaction of the subject. This research was turned down due to its potential for harm—not only to the subjects themselves, but also to the theiving confederate.

Cost is higher for NOT doing it: An example might be not testing a new therapeutic technique for emotionally disturbed adolescents. While the new therapeutic technique may poses some risks to the participants (i.e., its efficacy and adversive properties are not fully known), it also may have some very substantial benefits for the target population.