300 W6: Survey respondents who provide information to researchers about their employer or their behavior at work may jeopardize their job

****ANSWER POST 250 WORDS MIN****

 Discussion Questions: In this week's lesson we saw the harm that researchers can cause their human subjects. Many of the examples that are used to highlight this harm come from the experimental method which is popular in the field of psychology. However, researchers who engage with human subjects can cause emotional harm simply by asking questions about issues like domestic abuse or reproductive rights. Survey respondents who provide information to researchers about their employer or their behavior at work may jeopardize their jobs. Given the IRB process that is in place we can have confidence that any scholarly research was conducted in an ethical manner. What are your thoughts on the two examples provided in this week's lesson and why is it important to adhere to ethical norms in research? 

****REPLY TO EACH POST 100 WORDS MIN EACH****

 

1 Right off the bat, my first issue is with the lack of consent. Consent, being a powerful tool in modern day society, creates a sense of trust between two or more individuals.  A lack of recognizing consent can bring forth a sense of distrust within and towards an organization(Lecouturier et al., 2008). I for one can relate to this amongst the military and its members. Though higher ranking officials do not need the permission from the lower ranks in order to command action, not even asking for their input can lower morale and cause dissatisfaction within the unit. To add to the lack of trust, they lied to the men who were tested, and were general about the description of the affliction in which they were being tested for. A lie of omission is still a lie. On the plus side, at least these men were provided full medical care, food, and burial services in the worse case scenario. Once information about the study arose, the people demanded reparation for the scandal. In an effort to appease the people, the researchers “created” a judgment panel. I quotes created due to the information provided in the latter portion of the paragraph. With evidence to back the claims of voluntary subjugation to the treatment, but no evidence to full disclosure of the reason for treatment, and no evidence to support the claim that the men were given the choice to leave the test, the panel was not made of anyone who was local to the area inviting bias into the judgment. Regardless, the study was deemed unethical, which is a good thing. I’m grateful the lawsuit was filed, and the motion was awarded to the prosecution, as 10 million is well deserved, though it does little to repair the broken trust between the researchers and the community.

STUDY 2:

 I like the diversity in the selection of men for the study, as different men from different backgrounds allows for more varied results. I also noted that the researcher provides an in depth description on what the study was on, and even went into great detail on the history of what the study was on. The choice of teacher and learner was selected at random. I dislike the use of electric shock in this video. The use of physical harm, especially when used as a primary form of punishment, is known to cause ongoing trauma within the individual being “punishment”(Durrant & Ensom, 2012). This trauma can cause future aggression within the individual(Durrant & Ensom, 2012). I don’t know if it was due to the research at the time, but I thought it was a poor decision to have the man with heart conditions continue the test. At the very least, the position should have been switched. I agree with the use of the shock on the “teacher”. In law enforcement training, you usually have to experience what it’s like being hit or attacked with the instruments you yourself would use on suspects like a taser and riot shield. Something that stuck with me was the notification of the shock level before administering. Knowing the amount of punishment could prove useful in getting ready for it. On the other hand, within this experiment, one would then know his “punishment” would increase or decrease and would wonder why. I disliked the way the “teacher” asked how far one could go. Why would you increase punishment if someone just forgot a word? The final piece I would Like to add was how you could hear the shrieks of pain, and one of the volunteers wanted to end the experiment, but was told to continue. In the act of withdrawing that consent, couldn't this be considered torture? The possible mental issues this could cause someone, even if they aren't causing harm, could prove to still be devastating to one psyche. I do not agree either with the being forced to cause harm, even though he never was to begin with. 

Adhering to norms is what keeps us human. If a society, or form of society, considers a certain aspect of life normal or abnormal, then you are more likely to come into contact with variables within the study that also believes in these norms. A good example would be that of study two. The man is crying out in pain, the “teacher” wants to stop. He wanted to make sure the “student” was ok. What is considered abnormal, was the researchers wanting to continue the experiment regardless of the cries out in pain, and the “students” request to end the experiment.     

2  This week we were given two examples of historical studies and asked about our thoughts on them, as well as the importance of ethical norms in research.

Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male

Throughout history the times when the greatest medical advancements were made were often times of war, this is due to the mass quantities of surgery and medical experimentation. The Tuskegee study reminded me of those advancements made during times of war or even the medical experiments which were conducted upon the Jews by the Nazis. While this experiment may not have been on the same level as that it is still very plainly unethical. First the test subjects are treated as less than human, due to their race. There was no need for all the test subjects to be the same as race does not matter in the medical field that they are studying. Additionally, none of the circumstances of the study were explained to the test subjects. The study simply observed the medical effects and took no efforts provide treatments, and last the participants were not provided the option to exit the study. There is a way to conduct a study such as this, but it should not select its participants solely on their race, they need to be fully aware of the study being conducted and they need to have the availability of treatment as well as the ability to exit the study at any time and have their information kept private.

The Milgram Obedience Experiment

The goal of the second experiment was to discern how willing individuals were to inflicting pain upon someone else out of obedience to an authority figure, this question was sparked by the Nazis in WW2 who stated they were simply following orders and were unwilling participants in war crimes. Milgram collected a group of males and instructed them to shock a fellow participant with electricity at progressively higher voltages. If the participants refused, they were continually prompted to shock the other participant until they either quit the experiment or carried out the action. This is an interesting experiment but there are some problems, the individuals being shocked were actors and they were not really being shocked, while this is a good thing that no one was being harmed it is considered unethical as he was lying to the participant. There are numerous other flaws in the experiments; however, the main controversy arose from the act of deceiving the participants.

In any study conducted all the participants have the right to know the details of the experiment they agree to, and they should be able to trust that the sponsor of the study is not actively lying to them. If the participants are lied to or not allowed to exit the study, it is an unethical study.