Is it ethical to research human behavior?

[grayson]

I have autism and ADHD. But I don't think it is necessarily "bad" to research these behaviors. If we want to have a better understanding of human behavior and neurodivergent behavior and how the human brain differs. I think we should research. Here is another question. What if instead of researching behavior, we research the organs of organ donors? Is that ethical? It would be good for innovation. But idk if it is ethical or not. What do you think?

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, grayson said:

What if instead of researching behavior, we research the organs of organ donors?

What if we do both?

17 minutes ago, grayson said:

Is that ethical?

It depends rather a lot on how we do it as well as why. 

[grayson]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

What if we do both?

It depends rather a lot on how we do it as well as why. 

Number one yes, we should, and number two, what would be ethical is maybe, interviews or just watching them. Here is a concept, Maybe there should be a program where the parents watch their kids (Especially neurodivergent) and report back on their behaviors. But still give them the space they need. 

[iNow]

It may be beneficial to learn more about what has been previously and what is already being done today so you may better focus your energies into remaining gaps (instead of wheel reinvention)

[Steve81]

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

What if we do both?

It depends rather a lot on how we do it as well as why. 

Let me offer a scenario. I moderate a forum elsewhere, and in a prior software version, there was a reputation similar to that here. Users could upvote and downvote others; negative feedback was anonymous. In addition, users could add a comment to their feedback. As a moderator, I one day stumbled upon the database that had ALL the negative comments, and who had sent them to whom. If this data were analyzed, would that be an ethical violation? If a forum were specifically set up in a similar manner to see how rude people could be towards one another, would that be an ethical concern? 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, grayson said:

Number one yes, we should,

We already do

1 hour ago, grayson said:

and number two, what would be ethical is maybe, interviews or just watching them. Here is a concept, Maybe there should be a program where the parents watch their kids (Especially neurodivergent) and report back on their behaviors. But still give them the space they need. 

Such observation is anecdotal, and probably of limited help. Observation by trained professionals - who know what to look for - is probably more helpful.

22 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Let me offer a scenario. I moderate a forum elsewhere, and in a prior software version, there was a reputation similar to that here. Users could upvote and downvote others; negative feedback was anonymous. In addition, users could add a comment to their feedback. As a moderator, I one day stumbled upon the database that had ALL the negative comments, and who had sent them to whom. If this data were analyzed, would that be an ethical violation?  

Analyzed? Probably not unethical, if users had consented to it, and you aren’t profiting in some secret way.

Quote

If a forum were specifically set up in a similar manner to see how rude people could be towards one another, would that be an ethical concern?

Consent would be required. Research where you are risking some sort of harm without consent would be unethical.

[Steve81]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Analyzed? Probably not unethical, if users had consented to it, and you aren’t profiting in some secret way.

Consent would be required. Research where you are risking some sort of harm without consent would be unethical.

I appreciate the kind response; how specific would the consent need to be, such that we don’t bias the results? No profit would be involved in this endeavor one way or the other.

[iNow]

48 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

to see how rude people could be towards one another

What is your metric for rudeness?

Is it binary yes/no, or does it have different intensities along a scale?

Who gets to decide these ratings, and how is bias removed or minimized before averages and analyses get conducted?

13 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

how specific would the consent need to be

It needs to allow consent to be informed. These aren’t new questions (see also previous comments about reinvented wheels)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980471/

Edited August 20, 2023 by iNow
Autocorrect is precious, but I was going for previous

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, grayson said:

I think we should research.

Certainly - with the subjects' informed consent. Same with organs: the donor should be able to specify the purposes for which they consent to have their organs used. This could also apply to tissues surgically removed.

As to behaviour, observations are made all the time in treatment facilities, institutions, many work-places and schools. To what extent these data are analyzed, and to whom they are reported depends on the purpose of the observation. When psychologists conduct studies and publish the results, the identity of subjects is never revealed, to prevent any potential harm. Scientific studies, of course, need to be very strictly defined and controlled to be as bias-free as possible, while observations of office interaction require a much lower standard of precision to be useful in removing stress points or impediments to efficiency.     

[grayson]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Certainly - with the subjects' informed consent. Same with organs: the donor should be able to specify the purposes for which they consent to have their organs used. This could also apply to tissues surgically removed.

As to behaviour, observations are made all the time in treatment facilities, institutions, many work-places and schools. To what extent these data are analyzed, and to whom they are reported depends on the purpose of the observation. When psychologists conduct studies and publish the results, the identity of subjects is never revealed, to prevent any potential harm. Scientific studies, of course, need to be very strictly defined and controlled to be as bias-free as possible, while observations of office interaction require a much lower standard of precision to be useful in removing stress points or impediments to efficiency.     

I would donate my brain to research. I would donate my appendix to Chernobyl so that they can research radioactivity on a non-important organ. But if I ever get my appendix removed, I will keep it because I am weird that way. I will either donate my other organs to research or other people. If I ever get famous I would love to think that people get my organs and are happy that they got a famous persons organs.

[Steve81]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

What is your metric for rudeness?

Is it binary yes/no, or does it have different intensities along a scale?

Who gets to decide these ratings, and how is bias removed or minimized before averages and analyses get conducted?

It needs to allow consent to be informed. These aren’t new questions (see also previous comments about reinvented wheels)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980471/

With respect to the first section of your post, it's a hypothetical scenario; use whatever answers you're comfortable with.

 

Unfortunately, the link isn't that helpful.

Quote

In our modern ethical conception, all research conducted on humans must be pre-emptively accepted by the subjects themselves through the procedure known as informed consent, which is a process by which “a subject voluntarily confirms his or her willingness to participate in a particular trial, after having been informed of all aspects of the trial that are relevant to the subject’s decision to participate”

What information is relevant, and what isn't, with respect to getting subjects to participate in such a trial? That's my question. This isn't a simple drug trial, where the risks are readily explained without affecting the research itself. What risks are there of basically observing people interact in their public and anonymous private communications in the first place? How does informed consent happen, by announcing that we’re doing a study on human behavior, without making people suspicious of the anonymous negative comment feature? If that isn’t possible, it’s no wonder there’s so little hard data in psychology.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

it's a hypothetical scenario; use whatever answers you're comfortable with.

You’re the one proposing we research rudeness. I asked by what measure and told me nothing in reply. It’s your study idea, not mine. To be frank,

I’m comfortable with ignoring it and flushing it down the drain. 

14 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

How does informed consent happen

You should consider reading up on it. We’ve been doing it for decades. 

[Steve81]

45 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re the one proposing we research rudeness. I asked by what measure and told me nothing in reply. It’s your study idea, not mine. To be frank,

I’m comfortable with ignoring it and flushing it down the drain. 

You should consider reading up on it. We’ve been doing it for decades. 

I didn't propose we research rudeness; I proposed a scenario in which research was being conducted on rudeness, and asked what the ethical implications were. 

Is there a particular problem you have with me that you'd like to discuss in private? If not, perhaps it’s just best to ignore each other going forward to avoid conflict/misunderstandings.

Edited August 20, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Steve81 said:

I didn't propose we research rudeness; I proposed a scenario in which research was being conducted on rudeness, and asked what the ethical implications were

Do you believe the way rudeness gets measured and classified (and who defines those classifications) has no bearing on the ethics of any research into it?

4 hours ago, Steve81 said:

Is there a particular problem you have with me

Who are you again? 

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, Steve81 said:

What information is relevant, and what isn't, with respect to getting subjects to participate in such a trial?

It would have to be a statement of intent with the option of acceptance or refusal, before anyone joins the forum. Something like:

Do you agree to having your ratings and comments monitored for the purpose for research? Then you'd have to explain who does the monitoring, for what reason, and what privacy safeguards are guaranteed. Including the promise of not reading comments by people who opt out. 

I'm not sure anyone who actually read the site guidelines would still join, or if they did, whether they would make use of the rating and comment option. After all, there is no anonymity behind the scenes; a mod can out you at any time. (I've seen that happen.)

[Steve81]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Who are you again? 

I’m the guy that taught you what reporting bias is. I hope you get that epic chip off your shoulder some day. Bye.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It would have to be a statement of intent with the option of acceptance or refusal, before anyone joins the forum. Something like:

Do you agree to having your ratings and comments monitored for the purpose for research? Then you'd have to explain who does the monitoring, for what reason, and what privacy safeguards are guaranteed. Including the promise of not reading comments by people who opt out. 

I'm not sure anyone who actually read the site guidelines would still join, or if they did, whether they would make use of the rating and comment option. After all, there is no anonymity behind the scenes; a mod can out you at any time. (I've seen that happen.)

Thanks! Would it still be considered informed consent if they didn’t read it, and it was just buried somewhere in the terms and conditions? Or does it have to be patently obvious?

Edited August 21, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

I’m the guy that taught you what reporting bias

Professor Gilden?!? When did you change your first name to Steve?

6 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Would it still be considered informed consent if they didn’t read it

Depends on the nature of the research. For things where harm is unlikely, they only need to be given the opportunity to be informed, but can sign off without first being forced to comprehend. There are usually institutional review boards overseeing such things. 

8 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

I hope you get that epic chip off your shoulder some day. Bye.

Is there a particular problem you have with me?

Thanks for the neg rep. Please stop abusing the PM system and instead keep the conversation here out in the open. 

[Peterkin]

9 hours ago, Steve81 said:

Or does it have to be patently obvious?

It has to be clear. No entrapment.

[CharonY]

There is a lot of speculation in this thread, but fundamentally these types of research involving humans in any form are addressed by ethics review boards following guidelines set up by major research funding agencies in a given country. The overall guidelines are pretty much the same.

First, you have to assess whether there is any potential for harm of the participants. This can include things like distress, ostracization, physical harm and so on. If so, the next thing to assess is whether the harm is beyond minimal (basically more than one expects to encounter in their daily life). For example, if you interview surgeons and want to show them surgery pictures, that should not be distressing as it is part of their jobs. Showing them to non-surgeons or medical professionals could be disturbing.

Then, you have to show how you mitigate harm. For example, if you interview folks regarding drug abuse, the knowledge that they participated could be harmful to them. One could mitigate that by ensuring that participation is fully anonymous, or if not, at least confidential. Mild distress could be mitigated by having a counsellor on call and so on. 

Generally, you need to inform folks of potential harm (e.g. distress), but if necessary, there are guidelines for the use of partial disclosure or deception. Here, the researcher has to demonstrate why deception is necessary and that it does not cause undue harm. Generally you are also required to report back to the participants what the study was really about (i.e. debriefing). At this stage typically participants have to be able to withdraw their consent. However, direct risks associated with the study have to still to be disclosed beforehand.

[Steve81]

Thanks for the replies @CharonY and @Peterkin!