Learning Objectives Discuss how research involving human subjects is regulated. Summarize the processes of informed consent and debriefing. Explain how research involving animal subjects is regulated. When scientists seek to understand the natural world, they do not always know what they are going to find. And they certainly do not know what will be done with their discoveries. For example, Lise Meitner discovered nuclear fission but was a staunch pacifist who wanted to have nothing to do with a bomb. Unfortunately within a few decades, her discovery led to nations developing nuclear weapons capable of destroying all human life on Earth. Scientists are ultimately not responsible for what happens in the world based on the knowledge that they discover. However if the citizens of the world are not capable of making moral choices with the new knowledge that is generated, this new knowledge could be more dangerous to us than it is helpful to us. This is where the other ways of knowing become so important: they provide us with a basic respect for human dignity and safety. Unfortunately, not all scientists have had the moral convictions of Lise Meitner. There are too many incidents of scientists throughout history performing experiments that have harmed and continue to harm people, especially people from marginalized groups. Scientists are no more or less likely to make moral decisions than anyone else is, but a poor choice by a scientist can have lasting effects. This is why having other ways of knowing is important to create the types of regulations that prevent scientists from harming people with their work. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound. This section presents how ethical considerations affect the design and implementation of research conducted today. Research Involving Human Participants Any experiment involving the participation of human subjects is governed by extensive, strict guidelines designed to ensure that the experiment does not result in harm. Any research institution that receives federal support for research involving human participants must have access to an institutional review board (IRB) . The IRB is a committee of individuals often made up of members of the institution’s administration, scientists, and community members. The purpose of the IRB is to review proposals for research that involves human participants. The IRB reviews these proposals with the principles mentioned above in mind, and generally, approval from the IRB is required in order for the experiment to proceed. An institution’s IRB requires several components in any experiment it approves. For one, each participant must sign an informed consent form before they can participate in the experiment. An informed consent form provides a written description of what participants can expect during the experiment, including potential risks and implications of the research. It also lets participants know that their involvement is completely voluntary and can be discontinued without penalty at any time. Furthermore, the informed consent guarantees that any data collected in the experiment will remain completely confidential. In cases where research participants are under the age of 18, the parents or legal guardians are required to sign the informed consent form. Link to Learning View this example of a consent form to learn more. While the informed consent form should be as honest as possible in describing exactly what participants will be doing, sometimes deception is necessary to prevent participants’ knowledge of the exact research question from affecting the results of the study. Deception involves purposely misleading experiment participants in order to maintain the integrity of the experiment, but not to the point where the deception could be considered harmful. For example, if we are interested in how our opinion of someone is affected by their attire, we might use deception in describing the experiment to prevent that knowledge from affecting participants’ responses. In cases where deception is involved, participants must receive a full debriefing upon conclusion of the study—complete, honest information about the purpose of the experiment, how the data collected will be used, the reasons why deception was necessary, and information about how to obtain additional information about the study. DIG DEEPER: Ethics and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Unfortunately, the ethical guidelines that exist for research today were not always applied in the past. In 1932, poor, rural, black, male sharecroppers from Tuskegee, Alabama, were recruited to participate in an experiment conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service, with the aim of studying syphilis in black men ( Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)). In exchange for free medical care, meals, and burial insurance, 600 men agreed to participate in the study. A little more than half of the men tested positive for syphilis, and they served as the experimental group (given that the researchers could not randomly assign participants to groups, this represents a quasi-experiment). The remaining syphilis-free individuals served as the control group. However, those individuals that tested positive for syphilis were never informed that they had the disease. While there was no treatment for syphilis when the study began, by 1947 penicillin was recognized as an effective treatment for the disease. Despite this, no penicillin was administered to the participants in this study, and the participants were not allowed to seek treatment at any other facilities if they continued in the study. Over the course of 40 years, many of the participants unknowingly spread syphilis to their wives (and subsequently their children born from their wives) and eventually died because they never received treatment for the disease. This study was discontinued in 1972 when the experiment was discovered by the national press (Tuskegee University, n.d.). The resulting outrage over the experiment led directly to the National Research Act of 1974 and the strict ethical guidelines for research on humans described in this chapter. Why is this study unethical? How were the men who participated and their families harmed as a function of this research? Link to Learning Visit this website about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to learn more. Research Involving Animal Subjects Many psychologists conduct research involving animal subjects. Often, these researchers use rodents or birds as the subjects of their experiments—the APA estimates that 90% of all animal research in psychology uses these species (American Psychological Association, n.d.). Because many basic processes in animals are sufficiently similar to those in humans, these animals are acceptable substitutes for research that would be considered unethical in human participants. This does not mean that animal researchers are immune to ethical concerns. Indeed, the humane and ethical treatment of animal research subjects is a critical aspect of this type of research. Researchers must design their experiments to minimize any pain or distress experienced by animals serving as research subjects. Whereas IRBs review research proposals that involve human participants, animal experimental proposals are reviewed by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) . An IACUC consists of institutional administrators, scientists, veterinarians, and community members. This committee is charged with ensuring that all experimental proposals require the humane treatment of animal research subjects. It also conducts semi-annual inspections of all animal facilities to ensure that the research protocols are being followed. No animal research project can proceed without the committee’s approval. Section Summary Regulatory processes have been created to prevent scientific research from having adverse effects on people. Any research institution that receives federal support for research involving human participants must have access to an institutional review board. Animal experimental proposals are reviewed by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Contributions and Attributions This page was remixed and edited by Jamie MacArthur (Madera Community College) from the OpenStax psychology text found her e.