Research ethics for lab-based psychology experiments are relatively well-establish. Research ethics for online field experiments, on the other hand, are still a subject of great disagreement, as was illustrated by the recent debates over the Facebook emotional contagion experiment. Because the tools of digital experimentation will evolve more quickly than shared norms about research ethics, we are likely to
continue to confront disagreements about research ethics for some time to come. When making decisions about the ethics of our own research — and having debates about research ethics in the digital age more broadly — researchers should make use of existing principles of ethical research that have already been developed. Although the specific ethical issues that we face are new, the general problems are very old. One excellent source of existing wisdom about research ethics is the
Belmont Report, which was published in 1979. Commissioned by the US Government in response to ethical failures in medical research, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the Belmont Report was written by a panel of experts and proposes three principles that should underlying the ethical conduct of research involving
human subjects: 1) Respect for persons; 2) Beneficence; and 3) Justice. These three principles, which are somewhat abstract in the Report, were later operationalized into the the detailed rules and procedures that make up the Common Rule, which governs research at US universities. When facing a research ethics challenge, going back to these three principles can often be very helpful. The Belmont Report argues that respect for persons consists of two distinct principles: individuals should be treated as autonomous and individuals with diminished autonomy should be entitled to additional protections. The principle of respect for persons is interpreted to mean that researchers should, if possible, receive informed consent from participants, and the Belmont Report identifies three elements of informed consent: information, comprehension, and
voluntariness. That is, respect for persons implies that participants should be presented with relevant information in a comprehensible format and then should voluntarily agree to participate. Beneficence can roughly be understood to mean having the interests of research participants in mind. The principle of beneficence is behind efforts by researchers to minimize risks to participants and maximize benefits to participants and society. For example,
when considering a research design, the principle of beneficence should cause us to ask if there is another way that we could obtain the same knowledge but with lower risks to participants. The principle of justice addresses the distribution of the burdens and benefits of research. That is, it should not be the case that one group in society bears the costs of research while another group reaps its benefits. Issues of justice arise most strongly around
questions about the selection of participants. Applying these three principles to specific ethical situations can be difficult, and the principles sometimes come into conflict. However, even if they do not lead to clear decisions in all cases, keeping these three principles in mind helps clarify the issues. Update: If you would like to read more about the ethics of social research, you can read Chapter 6 of
my book Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age. Category: Research Number: RCH-020-010 Audience: All members of the University's research community Issued: March 10, 2015 Revised: May 28, 2015 Owner(s): VP (Research) Approved by: Board of Governors Contact: Director, Research Office - 306-585-4775 IntroductionThe University is committed to ensuring the highest standards of research ethics are understood and practiced in its community. This policy defines research ethics and research with humans and outlines the University’s processes for maintaining ethics throughout research at the University of Regina. When humans, human tissues or human data are used in the course of research or other comparable activities, it is the primary concern of the University that the rights of the participants are respected and protected and that the procedures followed comply with ethical, scientific, methodological, medical, and legal standards. The University values the academic freedom of its researchers, and the ethics review process shall not unfairly censor researchers who support unorthodox views. However, academic freedom is complemented by the requirement that the rights of human participants be respected. The University of Regina follows the national standards articulated in the second edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. The guiding principles of this policy statement are:
The University of Regina is party to the “Agreement on the Administration of Agency Grants and Awards by Research Institutions” which governs receipt of funds from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Section 3.4 of this Agreement states that the University must comply with the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, second edition (TCPS2), and any amendments. In addition, research must comply with any further related agency requirements, such as CIHR’s guidelines on research involving human stem cells. ScopeThis policy applies to all members of the University involved in research with human participants, human tissues or human data. Members of the University of Regina include but are not limited to, faculty, professors emeriti, sessional lecturers, staff, trainees, graduate and undergraduate students, adjunct professors, visiting professors, visiting scholars, professional affiliates, associate members, residents, and postdoctoral fellows at the University of Regina. This policy also applies to research with human participants, tissues or data undertaken by any person or Institute/Centre associated with the University of Regina, or using any University of Regina resources inclusive of persons (i.e., students, staff, faculty), or if funds for such purposes be accepted or accounts established. In particular, a) All research that involves living human subjects requires review and approval by an REB in accordance with this Policy Statement, before the research is started except as stipulated below. b) Research involving human remains, cadavers, tissues, cells, proteins, biological fluids, embryos or foetuses shall also be reviewed by the REB. c) Research about a living individual involved in the public arena, or about an artist, based exclusively on publicly available information, documents, records, works, performances, archival materials or third-party interviews, is not required to undergo ethical review. Such research only requires ethical review if the subject is approached directly for interviews or for access to private papers, and then only to ensure that such approaches are conducted according to professional protocols and to Article 2.3 of this Policy. (Article 2.3: REB review is normally required for research involving naturalistic observation. However, research involving observation of participants in, for example, political rallies, demonstrations or public meetings should not require REB review since it can be expected that the participants are seeking visibility). d) Quality assurance studies, performance reviews or testing within normal educational requirements should not be subjects to REB review. Definitions
PolicyResearch EthicsConsistent with the Tri-Council Policy Statement, the University of Regina has mandated the REB to approve, reject, propose modifications to, or terminate any proposed or ongoing research involving human subjects which is conducted within, or by members of the institution, using the considerations set forth in the Tri-Council Policy as the minimum standard. Such decisions will be based on ethical considerations. The REB shall be constituted according to the current TCPS. In making its decisions, the REB will follow the specific guidelines laid out in Articles 2 through 13. Where issues raised in individual REB applications are not addressed specifically in the guidelines, the REB shall use the three core principles (Respect for Persons, Concern for Welfare and Justice) of the TCPS2 to assess the ethical considerations of the proposal. The University of Regina has one REB. In the case of research undertaken by undergraduate students within a course, the REB has delegated this review to approved departmental or faculty level ethics review committees. Copies of all approved protocols must be forwarded to the REB. It is the responsibility of departments to ensure that the highest ethical standards are met. The REB shall maintain the right of monitoring such research. Undergraduate research that involves more than minimum risk to participants cannot be delegated for departmental review and requires REB approval. The REB will take a proportionate approach to the review of proposals as outlined in Article 2.9. Research that is above minimal risk will be reviewed by the full REB. Research that is minimal risk will receive a delegated review as outlined in the REB terms of reference. Research that poses minimal risk shall not normally require peer review for scholarly merit. For research that is above minimal risk, additional review shall not be required where there is an existing peer-review assessment (e.g., if the research was funded through a peer-review process). In cases where peer review is required, the Office for Research, Innovation and Partnership will co-ordinate a scholarly review of the research on behalf of the Research Ethics Board. Initial approval is granted for one year, and can be renewed annually for a total of five years. In addition, the REB must review all substantive changes from approved research that affect participants at any stage of the process including, but not limited to, changes to the consent form, changes to the tasks or interventions involved in the research, or changes to measures to protect privacy and confidentiality. Any substantive change to the research should not be implemented without documented approval by the REB, except when necessary to eliminate an immediate risk to the participants. No research funds related to an REB proposal will be released until REB approval is obtained. If a project finishes or expires, funding will be frozen until the researcher either submits another proposal, reopens an existing project, or provides the Office of Research, Innovation and Partnerships with documentation certifying that all research with humans pertaining to the grant in question has been completed. Review of Research in Other JurisdictionsThe REB at the University of Regina has the responsibility to ensure that all research conducted under its auspices, irrespective of the location where it takes place, follows the guidelines established by the current TCPS. Therefore, research approved elsewhere, through another REB or equivalent body, must also be reviewed by the REB at the University of Regina. The University has entered into a collaboration agreement with the University of Saskatchewan and the Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region that allows for a common application form and consent template. Approval of a project by the REB is not a sufficient condition for a project to proceed. It is incumbent upon the researcher to determine whether there is a requirement for ethical approval by another body (e.g., a hospital REB). Researchers engaging in multi-center research are encouraged to review Chapter 8 of the Tri-council Policy document for a brief discussion of issues that may arise from the possibility that local REB’s may reach different conclusions about aspects of the same project. Non-ComplianceFailure to apply for and receive REB approval before conducting research with humans is one element of research misconduct. Breaches of the research ethics policy will be handled through provisions in the Research/Scholarly Misconduct. Allegations of Research Ethics Misconduct An allegation of research ethics misconduct must be presented to the department head or dean of the person being accused of misconduct, a designate, or the Vice-President (Research). It must be in writing and signed. The University will deal promptly (according to the Allegations and Processes sections of the Research Integrity policy) with all allegations of research misconduct. Roles and ResponsibilitiesUniversityThe University is responsible for providing the support and education required for all members of the University’s research community to develop and maintain the highest standards of ethics, integrity, accountability, and responsibility. University communityMembers of the University community are responsible for reporting all instances of research ethics misconduct and for cooperating fully in an inquiry or investigation into an allegation of research ethics misconduct. People in Supervisory PositionsPeople in supervisory positions at the University (including principle investigators) are responsible for ensuring everyone who works under their supervision, directly or indirectly, understands and complies with this policy. They are also responsible for ensuring their group’s work is valid. ResearchersResearchers are responsible for understanding and complying with this policy and taking responsibility for their research. Researchers who will be conducting research with human participants are advised to complete the Panel on Research Ethics tutorial, Course on Research Ethics (CORE). Consequences for NoncomplianceThe University conducts an inquiry and, if necessary, an investigation of every allegation of research ethics misconduct. Where research ethics misconduct is judged to have occurred, the University will apply remedies consistent with the seriousness of the misconduct, up to and including termination of the member’s position with the University and referral to a law enforcement agency. The Vice-President (Research) will notify the appropriate funding agencies and professional associations as required. Related Information
What does justice in research mean?In research ethics, justice is the fair selection of research participants. Justice is the ideal distribution of risks and benefits when scientists conducting clinical research are recruiting volunteer research participants to participate in clinical trials.
Is the study fairly distributing risk and benefits?The principle of justice--that benefits and risks of research be distributed fairly. Researchers are not just if they only select disadvantages persons for risky research or only provide beneficial research to groups they favor.
What is the ethical principle of justice in research?-- Just as the principle of respect for persons finds expression in the requirements for consent, and the principle of beneficence in risk/benefit assessment, the principle of justice gives rise to moral requirements that there be fair procedures and outcomes in the selection of research subjects.
What is justice in qualitative research?The purpose of justice is to ensure a fair and equal distribution of the burdens, risks, and benefits associated with participating in research studies.
|
In research, justice refers to distributing benefits and risks of research fairly.
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 de.ketajaman Inc.
