As a researcher, we have to follow a designed set of rules or ethical principles when we are collecting raw data in order to achieve a more valid and reliable result. There are several ethical principles that we researchers need to obey and one of it is beneficence. As a researcher, Humprey should try his best in protecting his respondents as what we wanted in collecting raw data is maximizing the possibilities but minimizing the risks of placing his respondents in danger. By minimizing the risks, Humprey could protect the wellbeing of his respondents from being harmed by others (American Psychological Association, 2010). Moreover, before the research is conducted, Humprey should’ve explained his research objective to his respondents as fidelity and responsibility are crucial points …show more content…
A respondent would expect their researcher to be honest with their data and as one, Humprey could not manipulate the data or intentionally misinterpreted the data given by the respondents (American Psychological Association, 2010). As a researcher, Humprey had the obligation to protect the wellbeing of his respondents. Ethical practices are practiced so that researcher could gain trust from their respondents and thus would not affected the raw data in any way that is possible.
4) What are the potential consequences of not following the ethical principles to Humprey’s study?
When we did not follow the designed ethical principles, there would be a lot of consequences that could happen. One of it is how the data would not be valid as the respondents would not believe Humprey in handling their data and as a respondent, they have the right to withdraw their data. Hence, this is where consent is really important as the respondents could have the power to withdraw ourselves from the research if we deemed to be uncomfortable with the terms and
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a non-fictional novel dedicated to describing the life and experiences of a woman by the name of Henrietta Lacks who’s cervical cells became famous for a multitude of reasons. Henrietta was an African American woman born in the 1920’s who developed an aggressive form of cervical cancer and was treated by doctors at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Her infamous story began when doctors began treating Henrietta with radium and took tissue samples from her cervix without her knowing. Cancer researchers began testing Henrietta’s cells (labeled HeLa) and found that they, unlike many other human cells, multiplied at rapid rates and almost seemed to be “immortal” or never-ending. These cells were shared, sold, and researched
First, the studies performed by Rosenhan were unethical. The core principles of an ethical study are outlined in the Belmont report. These were identified as respects for persons, beneficence, and justice (Winchip, 2016). Still, some of these qualities were blatantly ignored as these studies were initiated
This paper is on a Harvard case study of Pat Parker, a lawyer who conducts political oppositional research and prepares reports. The work is done by contract between Parker and the candidate's campaign. The scenario is that Parker previously provided a report to a campaign, two years later; a group of lawyers who supported the candidate's opponent wants to buy the report plus other materials. The three parts of the paper include: the legal analysis, the ethical analysis and the recommendation for action. The paper considers contract law, copyright law, campaign statutes and codes of ethics. Bibliography lists 6 sources. Pat Parker conducts research grant applications (R01) to investigate ethical issues in human subjects research. The Code of Federal Regulations - Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR, Part 46) provides a regulatory framework that all Parker-supported researchers must follow. Recent developments in biomedical and behavioral research, however, including the rapid growth of new interventions and technologies, increasing involvement of foreign populations in clinical research, and concerns about financial conflicts of interest among researchers, challenge investigators' abilities to interpret and apply the regulations (Buergenthal, 1995). Other situations (e.g., research with vulnerable populations, the use of data banks or archives, research on stigmatizing diseases or conditions) may present difficulties for identifying strategies, procedures, and/or techniques that will enhance/ensure the ethical involvement of human participants in research. The purpose of this program announcement is to solicit research addressing the ethical challenges of involving human participants in research in order to inform and optimize...
The APA ethical guidelines help to ensure that all psychological research maintains the integrity that it does not do harm or conflicts with the majority of the human populations moral ethical codes. However, in some situations the APA ethical guidelines must be viewed as just that: guidelines. If a study has the potential to benefit humanity as a whole and does not result in the permanent or irreparable harm to a human being then some guidelines must be permitted to be stretched or even broken in the interest of human advancement and scientific progression. After all the goal and responsibility of a psychologist is to enhance our understanding of human behavior as well as to find ways to use this information to better society and humanity as a whole. In a circumstance that has the potential to achieve this goal, violation of the APA ethical guidelines is acceptable on the condition that the research maintains the integrity of not inflicting irreparable damage or harm to the subjects being used. This includes psychological harm, physical harm, or social humiliation to any human being regardless of age, size, race, gender, disability or other determining characteristic.
3). By receiving approval, it can be inferred that the study was ethically acceptable and the rights of the participants are protected (Houser, 2015, p. 61). To ensure human subjects are protected during research studies, researchers use three ethical principals: respect for persons, beneficence and justice (Houser, 2015, p. 52). Respect for persons protects the individuals right to make their own decisions, beneficience is do not harm, and justice provides the right for every individual who wants the opportunity to partipate in the study can (Houser, 2015, pp. 52-53). Respect for persons was protected by the researchers because they provided informed consent prior to data collection, data collection would remain confidential, and the participants can withdraw from the study at any time (Bjerknes & Bjork, 2012, p. 3). Beneficence was protected in this study because the researcher wasn’t an employee from the hospital; this allowed new nurses’ to share their perceptions freely, preventing any fear of retribution from being honest (Bjerknes & Bjork, 2012, p. 3). Justice was not clearly stated in this study because the researchers did not clearly state if the study was open to all new nurses on all the wards of the hospital (Bjerknes & Bjork, 2012, p.
Regardless of the reason or type of approach employed, it is never tolerable for a person to adjust or slant results from research to arrive at any particular conclusion; for such actions can have disastrous consequences to others. Also, the issue of ethics becomes a f...
Respect for beneficence, human dignity, and justice are three fundamental ethical principles that guide the ethical conduct of research on humans. Prior to the twentieth century, little attention was paid to protecting human research subjects. The Tuskegee Study ethical principles to protect human participants were grossly violated. First, the ethical principle of beneficence did not apply to the study. The study intentionally caused harm and failed to maximize risk/benefit assessments to both subjects’ and society at large.
This balance is quite important as the well being of participants is at risk. Over the last twentieth century, there have been numerous examples in which ethical principles have not been considered in research leading to ethical breaches that have negative implications on study participants.1 One US human experimentation study which breached ethical conduct was the US Public Health Service Syphilis Study, more commonly known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which was conducted from 1932 through 1972.2 The study recruited 399 African-American male subjects diagnosed with syphilis. The recruited men came from poor, rural counties around Tuskegee, Alabama. The stated purpose of the study was to obtain information about the course of untreated syphilis. The study was initially meant to be for 6 months, however the study was modified into a “death as end-point study”.
... had a positive outcome. I believe that it makes the results more accurate when the people don’t know that they are being studied. People do act more comfortably and this is definitely a way to obtain the best results, as opposed to people who know they are being studied and tend to provide different answers. Humphrey also uses statistics to show the percentages of people who were involved in such behaviors to show us where they come from and what their social environments were like. Nowadays, it is unethical to do so and to collect data and study people without their consultation as it can invade privacy. This study raises fundamental questions on the moral fabric and the role of religious and political institutions in giving direction on covert deviant actions. The most “flawless” people we perceive in society are those who engage the most in such deviant behavior.
However on the other hand, for all advantages; there are disadvantages. In some instances when people utilize and manipulate data, they may knowingly falsify data so that it may adhere to ones beliefs or theories. In addition there are people who may deliberately tamper with information as well. When collecting information, there must be neutrality when assessing and collecting data. In addition, professional competence and integrity must be superior and finally, all research subjects or respondents must be safeguarded from potential harm and sabotage.
Following the ethical codes and getting approval from the Institutional Review Board (if the study has human subjects) can really decrease the possibility of any harm being done to the participants. A perfect example of a research study that had lots of things unethical practices was the Tuskegee Syphilis study:
Lastly, it is important to be an ethical person while performing participant observation or any kind of research for that matter. However, there is always a tension that is there between the researchers and participants. It can be easy to take it one step too far in the sake of research. “First, do no harm” is what all researchers and observers should keep in
Therefore, the use of human participants in Psychology’s empirical research methods is essential to the scientific discoveries within the field. Carrying out this research means possibly subjecting participants to manipulated environments that may directly or indirectly impact their well-being. This is where ethics becomes an important cornerstone of Psychological Research
These ethical principles include autonomy, which is when it is required that people who are capable of making autonomous decisions in according to their beliefs, idiosyncrasies or perceptions are previously taken into account. The ethical obligation not to harm and maximize potential benefits in terms of research risks must be reasonable in the light of benefits: relevant objective, appropriate methodological design, to obtain some knowledge on health aspects. “Beneficence refers to the ethical obligation to maximize
The researcher may have to deceive individuals to gain the data needed for study, as well as the possibility of having to get in involved in illegal or immoral activities while conducting research. These type of actions by the researcher could lead to biases in the study. The investigator may begin to sympathize with the group. There is also the possibility of not being able to generalize the data due to small sample size (Windsor, 2016). The primary goal for participant observation is to stay focus on the task at hand.