Running head: ETHICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH 1
Ethical Issues in Research
Robert J. Laukaitis, Jr.
PSY- 7543
Ethics and Multicultural Issues in Psychology
424 Todd Creek Place
Forsyth, GA 31029
Telephone: 478-394-2405
Email:
Instructor: Dr. Rojeanne Bostic
ETHICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH 3
Abstract
The ethical issue regarding the disposition of research animals was appraised. In Case Example 12.15 (Ford, 2006, p. 249), Ford’s (2006) Model was adapted into a flowchart format in order to study the ethical issues. Through this eight-step process, three options for the disposition of animals were proposed for consideration by the university for which the professor worked. Initial ethical and legal considerations were appraised. Information was gathered from sources that provide guidance for the ethical treatment of animals in a research setting. Once the information was gathered, another appraisal of the ethical and legal issues clarified the scope of the ethical issue. A metaethical reflection regarding the relevance of the ethical considerations revealed a profound alignment with the potential solutions and an ethical contextualism philosophy. A final appraisal of the ethical and legal considerations confirmed early considerations of a potential solution and a decision was made to propose a policy addition for the hypothetical university addressing the humane care, consideration and disposition of animals used for psychological experimentation. Lastly, the process followed in this document represents the documentation of the decision-making process (Ford, 2006).
ETHICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH 3
Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
List of Figures 4
Ethical Issues in Research 5
A Model for Ethical Decision Making 5
Step 1: Appraise ethical and legal considerations involved. 7
Step 2: Gather information. 8
Step 3: Appraise ethical and legal considerations involved. 9
Step 4: Engage in metaethical deliberations regarding the relevance of ethical considerations. 10
Step 5: Engage in metaethical deliberations regarding the resolution of the ethical dilemma. 10
Step 6: Appraise ethical and legal considerations involved. 12
Step 7: Make a decision. 12
Step 8: Document rationale and decision-making process. 13
Conclusion 14
References 15
ETHICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH 3
List of Figures
Figure 1: Ford's Model of the Ethical Decision-Making Process 6
ETHICAL ISSUES IN RESEARCH 3
Ethical Issues in Research
Research is a careful study aimed at finding and reporting new knowledge about a particular topic (Merriam-Webster, 2014), in this case psychological knowledge. In order to conduct research, the Industrial/Organizational psychologist must understand the scientific method. Various methods exist, however the fundamental steps of the scientific process remain somewhat stable:
- making observations,
- formulating questions,
- defining research topics,
- creating hypotheses,
- planning and performing experiments,
- collecting and analyzing data,
- drawing conclusions (Anonymous, 2010)
These steps continue to provide the means by which researchers discover or confirm information about a research subject.
In some cases, the use of animals to simulate human behavior under control conditions provides a suitable, cost-effective method of providing the researcher with critical information. The case study under review involves the disposition of these animals after research is conducted and the ethical issues researchers face as a result (Ford, 2006, p. 250).
A Model for Ethical Decision Making
The model for ethical decision making provided by Ford (2006) provides a process through which ethical considerations can be made in arriving at a resolution to an ethical dilemma (Figure 1: Ford's Model of the Ethical Decision-Making Process).
Figure 1: Ford's Model of the Ethical Decision-Making Process
Ford (2006) recognizes that the purpose of his model is to help professionals discern “contexts involving multiple, or competing, ethical considerations from those that are less ethically complex” (p. 82). To help researchers avoid the potential of being taken aback when challenged by ethical issues, the model acts as a template of rational steps professionals can use to arrive at well-informed decisions regarding actions needed given a set of complex circumstances. Langlais (2012) opines that students in a research setting should be educated and be fully aware of the standards for conducting research base in the local environment, or context, in which they operate. This supports a fundamentaly contextualistic approach to the resolution of this dilemma.
Step 1: Appraise ethical and legal considerations involved. The ethical and legal considerations for the treatment of animals are quite clear in this step of the process. APA guideline 8.09 (g) (American Psychological Association, 2010) states:
When it is appropriate that an animal’s life be terminated, psychologists proceed rapidly, with an effort to minimize pain and in accordance with accepted procedures. (p. 11)
Although the nature of the research being conducted is not mentioned by the author, there is no indication that an infectious disease, painful existence or significantly altered life for the animals was incurred as a result of the research. Nor is there a reason to collect tissue from the animal posthumously as a result of the experiment being conducted. Therefore, the “sacrifice” as quoted by the professor was directly misleading to the student.
Furthermore, the APA guideline 8.09, Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research (American Psychological Association, 2010) state that “Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with current federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards” (p. 11). In this same section, researchers are responsible to ensure the consideration of the comfort, health, and humane treatment of the animals under their supervisory control. The researcher might have thought he or she was providing consideration by disposing of the animals without the need to care and feed them during the academic break, but this clearly did not require the researcher to destroy the animals to avoid this responsibility.
From a utilitarian viewpoint, the professor justified the disposal of the animals as being positive in that he or she was not inconvenienced by having to care for the animals through the academic break. Contextually speaking, the destruction of the animals and the conflicting choices of the professor and the student are recognized as completely normal. Contextualism also accepts the adaptability of ethical issues depending on the circumstances at the time (Ford, 2006). Here, there are at least two ethical points of friction to be considered in Ford’s model.
Step 2: Gather information. Information gathering is limited to the brief description of the case study and therefore constrains the choices of ethical consideration. To the extent possible, information gathered would include an understanding of federal, state and local laws governing the care and protection of animals used in research. The issue that remains a variable is whether or not there is a federal, state or local statute requiring the animals be disposed of at the end of the experiment period. Given there is not information provided in the case study as to the physical or psychological nature of the experiments being conducted, this step will ultimatley be less robust than others.
In further detail, the University of Nebraska Medical Center offers a policy that summarizes National Institute of Health (NIH) Public Health Service (PHS) opinion on this issue. The NIH and PHS provide no directive on this issue but PHS Policy, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition (“the Guide”) (Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 2011) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) “are silent on the issue of private adoption of research animals for pets after a study has been completed and the animals are no longer required” (Universtiy of Nebraska Medical Center, 2010, p. 1). The policy continues to state that institutions have the option of creating an adoption policy. Each policy must adhere to state and local regulations regarding transference of animal ownership. Within the Department of Defense, The Care and Use of Laboratory Animals in DOD Programs outlines a centralized regulation providing guidance with specific care and reporting requirements for animals used in research (Medical Services, 2005, p. 24).
Contextualism requires a broad understanding of the unique properties of this ethical dilemma (Ford, 2006). In this case, the acutal details of the eperiment are quite limited, however the rules and opinions of the relevant governing bodies are clear. If utilitarianism was applied to the perspective of the animals, their ultimate end would be contraindicated by the pursuit of pleasure supported by autilitarian paradigm.
Step 3: Appraise ethical and legal considerations involved. Once the details of the research chould be understood, the practitioner would appraise ethcial and legal considerations again in order to understand any new information and its impact on the overall ethical dilemma (Ford, 2006). In considering any new information or ethical impacts produced by a continued review of materials in this case, Carbone (2011) states that since the development of the United States Interagency Research Animal Committee published its Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training (“the Principles”) (The Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1985), several considerations must be made to reduce or limit animal suffering during experiementation. In addition, the Principles (The Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1985) state that “animals that would otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure” (p. 1).
In this case, there is no proof that the animals were subject to experiments that would require the humane disposal of the animals. The formalist could argue that given the existence of principles that do not expressly support the destruction of animals simply as a matter of convenience. This paradigm would also support the continued care and feeding by recognizing the existence of an incurred obligation to do so. Given the extent of the regulatory support for the ethical treatment of animals, contextualism would support the care and feeding of the animals in addition to the transference of them to either a suitable caretaker or animal shelter.
Step 4: Engage in metaethical deliberations regarding the relevance of ethical considerations. In this step, Ford (2006) intends that the practitioner determining whether each ethical concern is relevant to the situation. In this case, the relevance of the treatment of animals and the professor’s requirement that they be destroyed at the end of the experimentation period are the primary issues. By reflecting on the metaethical aspects of this case, the issue becomes one of preservation of life over convenience due to a lack of compassion.
The psychological egoism (Ford, 2006) of the student is obvious given the student’s willingness to perform self-sacrifice (a failing grade in the class) in opposition to the professor’s psychological hedonism in that he is satisfied by not having to care for the animals or arrange for their care over the school break. At this point, the ethical dilemma continues to persist and requires a deliberation regarding the resolution of the dilemma.
Step 5: Engage in metaethical deliberations regarding the resolution of the ethical dilemma. In this step Ford (2006) recommends that the practitioner address the questions of:
· Why has the value of preserving animals, minimizing stress and pain to the animals and providing care for the animals been made a priority?
· How does compassion for research animals contribute to the way of life of a researhc psychologist?
· “What are the implications and relative importance of considering” (Ford, 2006, p. 87) the preservation of the animals in this case?
These metaethical considerations in this case illuminate the concern for the welfare of the animals with respect to the research setting. In this case, the welfare of the animals conflicts reflects the value of protecting the animals from harm. Devising a solution that recognizes this value and complies with the Guide’s requirement for the humane treatment of animals (Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 2011). It is therefore the ethical duty of the professor to provide adequate care, environment and treatment for the animals regardless of the school’s scheduled breaks between semesters.
The value of preserving animals, minimizing stress and pain to the animals and providing care for the animals been made a priority by several governing and guiding bodies. The question has already been answered and the solution (the Guide) must be complied with and reported to the governing body. Compassion for research animals contributes to the way of life for the psychologist by showing that the compassion for the animals would likewise be representative of the practitioner’s compassion for others, clients included. The implications and relative importance of considering the preservation of the animals is derived from the regulatory guidance (Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 2011).
Contextually and from a formalist perspective, the sollution to the issue is clear. Logic dictates that the solution to the problem as it procedes through the model presented in Figure 1: Adapted from Ford's Model of the Ethical Decision-Making Process is to comply with the guidance applicable to the circumstances. Within the context of compliance and humane treatment of the laboratory animals, compassion dictates the same.
Step 6: Appraise ethical and legal considerations involved. At this point in the process, steps one through five have clarified the ethical dilemma, provided evidence based on research of the influential guidance and considered the metaethical issues regarding the transference and treatment of post-research laboratory animals. An appraisal of the situation concludes that the progress of ethical deliberations has clarified any ambiguity regarding this case study. No new information is required in order to provide any further clarification of potential options that could resolve the ethical dilemma.
Two options have surfaced for consideration:
· Allow the student to adopt the animal
· Maintain the animals at the university in accordance with acceptable animal husbandry practices
· Transfer the animals to an appropriate animal shelter for care and adoption by the public.
Any one of these options is consistent with fundamental values relative to the ethical treatment of animals in a research environment. In his case Ford (2006) suggests that the professor, in conjunction with colleagues could propose a university policy in order to formalize a university opinion on the disposition of eligible animals. A contextual solution could be that the university adopts a policy consistent with the Guide: depending on the tests performed on the animals, those animals that were not subject to physical trauma, chemical experimentation or otherwise thought to be harmful outside the research setting could be adopted by eligible owners. This would also satisfy the professor’s utilitarian view that the animals would no longer require care or euthanasia after the research has concluded.