Lecture May 24

9 views2 pages
9 Apr 2012
School
Department
Course
Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Evil Psychology Experiment, Stanford Prison – YouTube
*Belmont Principle:
-tri-council policy frames this differently, but risk-benefit analysis in any sort of decision
making around ethics
-tri-council policy talks about academic freedom, nancy olivieri case stems from this – uoft
did not back up nancy olivieri in backing her up against pharmaceutical companies
-research at universities increasingly funded by corporations
-pharmaceutical companies funding “publicly available research” – may cause data to be
ambivalent
-David Healey is another scientist who was hired for CAMH to open new centre for mood
disorders, attended uoft, came to do his speech – had pharmaceutical company who was
sponsor at opening event, job offer was withdrawn because of his talk surrounding use of
antidepressants and suicide
-tri council reflects responsibility of university and researcher to speak of and publish
results freely
-to speak of institution in critical way
-Academic Freedom; Freely Publishing Results; Challenging Current Thinking
-Right and responsibility to protect participants in any academic study; underlying this
premise is a respect for human dignity
-Human dignity often difficult to define
-tri council policy has actually summarized three explicit principles that speak to human
dignity: respect for persons, concerns for welfare and justice – principles are
complementary and interdependent with one another
-respect for persons: respect for autonomy; decisions that are uninfluenced in an untoward
way. To make logical, rational decisions. Factors that can impact autonomy: norms,
knowledge, values, money, social group (peers, family, community), bring in a stressful
situation, physical restraints (Zimbardo experiment), diminished capacity i.e. cognitive
impairment or psychological disorder.
-obligation to provide free and informed consent
-UTM Study on dieting and eating disorders, used deception – were interested in binging
behaviour; told participants in study that they were doing a survey on study techniques.
Came into the room by themselves or with others, randomly assigned, were interested in
how many chocolate chip cookies they ate depending on whether they were alone or with
others; whether they were a dieter in the past; Rule of Thumb is that deception is only ever
allowed if it is likely, and it can be shown that the participants would consent
anyway.*********
-If you can argue and convince the ethics review board that your participants wouldn’t
reject their consent to the study, and you couldn’t have found that information any other
way.
-Free-informed ongoing consent that it’s an informed choice, and your participants
understand the purpose of the research – in studies with no deception. Told tell them
hypothesis, but the purpose; should know risks and benefits to know whether they want to
participate.
-Accountability/ Transparency – lack thereof can impact autonomy.
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

Grade+
$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
40 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
30 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class