Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:21:57.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research ethics and Institutional Review Boards: The influence of moral constraints on emotion research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Michael Sontag
Michael Sontag*
Affiliation:
Department of General Studies and Philosophy, College of Mount St. Joseph, 5701 Delhi Road, Cincinnati, OH 45233, michael_sontag@mail.msj.edu
Get access

Abstract

Researchers in the twenty-first century face a set of challenges unknown to researchers a half century ago—the need to justify the moral acceptability of their research methods through formal review processes. However, the role that moral constraints play in the development and demise of scientific theories has largely gone unappreciated. The rise of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in the 1960s compounded the impact of moral constraints on scientific research and on the theories that develop out of such highly monitored research. To demonstrate the effects of moral constraints on scientific theory and research, this paper offers a history and analysis of the interaction between evolving moral standards and twentieth century emotion theory. Recommendations regarding IRB reform are also reviewed. The paper concludes by arguing that, while appropriate IRB reform is important, it cannot eliminate the need for careful reflection on the broader forces that shape scientific practice and understanding.

Keywords

emotion theorymoral constraintsresearch ethicsIRBsWilliam JamesWalter CannonSchachter and Singer experimentIllinois White Paper
Type
Research Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 1-2 , Spring/Fall 2012 , pp. 67 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Shamoo, Adil E. and Resnik, David B., Responsible Conduct of Research (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
2. Milgram, Stanley, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), pp. 13–27.Google Scholar
3. “Stanford prison experiment: A simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment conducted at Stanford University,” http://www.prisonexp.org, accessed May 21, 2012.Google Scholar
4. Zimbardo, Philip, The Lucifer Effect (New York: Random House, 2007).Google Scholar
5. White, Ron, “Institutional Review Board mission creep,” The Independent Review 2007, 11(4): 547–564.Google Scholar
6. American Association of University Professors, “Research on Human Subjects: Academic Freedom and the Institutional Review Board,” (2006), http://www.aaup.org/aaup/comm/rep/a/humansubs.htm, accessed May 21, 2012.Google Scholar
7. Clark, S., Pelletier, A. J., Brenner, B. E., Lang, D. M., and sStrunk, R. C., “Feasibility of a national fatal asthma registry: More evidence of IRB variation in evaluation of a standard protocol,” Annals of Epidemiology 2005, 15(8): 645.Google Scholar
8. Greene, Sarah M., Geiger, Ann M., Harris, Emily L., Altschuler, Andrea, Nekhlyudov, Larissa, Barton, Mary B., Rolnick, Sharon J., Elmore, Joann G., and Fletcher, Suzanne, “Impact of IRB requirements on a multicenter survey of prophylactic mastectomy outcomes,” Annals of Epidemiology 2006, 16(4): 275–278.Google Scholar
9. James, William, “What is an emotion?” Mind 1884, 9: 188–205.Google Scholar
10. James, William, The Principles of Psychology: Volume Two (New York: Dover Publications, 1890, 1950).Google Scholar
11. James, William, The Principles of Psychology: Volume One (New York: Dover Publications, 1890, 1950).Google Scholar
12. Dean, William, The Religious Critic in American Culture (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994).Google Scholar
13. American Philosophical Society's Walter B. Cannon papers, 1905–1928, http://www.amphilsoc.org/mole/view?docId=ead/Mss.B.C163.1-ead.xml;query=;brand=default, accessed May 21, 2012.Google Scholar
14. Cannon, Walter B., “The James-Lange theory of emotions: A critical examination and an alternative theory,” American Journal of Psychology 1927, 39: 106–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Sherrington, Charles Scott, “Experiments on the value of vascular and visceral factors for the genesis of emotion,” Proceedings of the Royal Society 1900, 66: 390–403.Google Scholar
16. Cannon, W. B., Lewis, J. T., and Britton, S. W., “The dispensability of the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 1927, 197: 514–515.Google Scholar
17. Schachter, Stanley and Singer, Jerome, “Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state,” Psychological Review 1962, 69: 379–399.Google Scholar
18. Reisenzein, Rainer, “The Schachter theory of emotion: Two decades later,” Psychological Review 1983, 94: 239–264.Google Scholar
19. Marshall, Gary and Zimbardo, Philip, “Affective consequences of inadequately explained physiological arousal,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979, 37(6): 970–988.Google Scholar
20. Mezzacappa, Elizabeth S., Katkin, Edward S., and Palmer, Stephen N., “Epinephrine, arousal, and emotion: A new look at two-factor theory,” Cognition and Emotion 1999, 13(2): 181–199.Google Scholar
21. Zillmann, Dolf, “Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive behavior,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1971, 7: 419–434.Google Scholar
22. Maslach, Christina, “Negative emotional biasing of unexplained arousal,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979, 37(6): 953–969.Google Scholar
23. Schachter, Stanley and Singer, Jerome, “Comments on the Maslach and Marshall-Zimbardo experiments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979, 37(6): 989–995.Google Scholar
24. Gunsalus, C. K., Bruner, Edward M., Burbules, Nicholas C., Dash, Leon, Finkin, Matthew, Goldberg, Joseph P., Greenough, William T., Miller, Gregory A., Pratt, Michael G., Iriye, Masumi, and Aronson, Deb, “The Illinois White Paper: Improving the system for protecting human subjects—Counteracting IRB ‘mission creep,”’ Qualitative Inquiry, 2007, 13(5): 617–649.Google Scholar
25. Sieber, Joan E., Plattner, Stuart, and Rubin, Philip. “How (not) to regulate social and behavioral research,” Professional Ethics Report, 2002, 15(2): 1–4.Google Scholar
26. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, “Report and recommendations: Institutional Review Boards,” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978, DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0008, p.16.Google Scholar