We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Social and personality psychologists have conducted surveys and experiments online for nearly twenty-five years. Researchers have used the Internet to ask questions about a wide range of topics, including racial bias, personality development, and attitude change. The frequency of conducting internet research has increased over time and understanding how to conduct online research has become a critical skill for psychologists. This chapter provides a general introduction to conducting survey and experimental research online. We outline how researchers can host and program internet studies, as well as their options for recruiting participant samples. We also cover important issues that researchers should consider about data quality, representativeness, generalizability, and upholding ethical standards. Throughout the chapter we discuss practices and guidelines that we view as optimal at the current time, and direct readers to additional literature that can further inform their thinking.
Local context is the most common concern regarding use of a single institutional review board (sIRB). Yet what “local context” constitutes remains underspecified. Developing a shared understanding of the goals of local context review, the categories of information that should be considered, as well as the types of studies for which sIRB review may be inappropriate, are critical for ensuring that sIRB review provides adequate protections for human subjects.
Methods:
We conducted a three-round modified Delphi process convening individuals with expertise in the conduct and oversight of multisite research. Delphi surveys explored: (1) the goals of local context review; (2) the types of information that should be considered; and (3) study types that should be exempted from sIRB requirements.
Results:
Twenty-one experts participated. Experts agreed that (1) local context review should aim to both protect local participants and ensure compliance and (2) that four types of information should be considered (population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws). There was less consensus about whether existing processes facilitated adequate consideration of this information. Experts agreed that exemptions from sIRB requirements should be permitted but disagreed about when and in what circumstances.
Conclusion:
There is overlapping consensus about both the goals of local context review and the types of information that should be assessed. Future work remains, however, to develop effective processes to best realize the goals of local context review – and do so with appropriate efficiency.
The Three Pillars (Harmonization, Replacement, and Justice) describe an ethical path forward and away from the use of nonhuman primates in harmful research and scientific use. Conducting nonhuman primate research in an ethical way that acknowledges their moral importance requires satisfying more rigorous guidelines and regulations modeled on those that apply to similarly vulnerable human subjects, especially children and incarcerated persons. This Element argues for the moral necessity of harmonizing human and nonhuman primate research ethics, regulations, and guidelines in a way that protects all primates, human and nonhuman. The authors call for the replacement of nonhuman primates in research with human-relevant methods that do not simply shift research onto other nonhuman animals, and challenge publics, governments, and scientific communities worldwide to implement justice in the selection and use of all research subjects. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
Uterus transplants (UTx) provide women without a uterus the possibility of experiencing gestational motherhood. This paper delineates the complex bioethical landscape surrounding UTx, focusing on the critical aspects of informed consent, risk–benefit analysis, justice considerations, and the distinct challenges encountered by both donors and recipients. While not discussing UTx directly, John Harris’ seminal work, The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics (1985) in its advocacy for reproductive freedom and informed consent provides an informative starting point for the discussion.
As an example, UTx is analyzed within the socio-political context of Mexico. The impact of the Mexican healthcare and legal systems on UTx procedures is discussed and the regulatory measures necessary to ensure that UTx is conducted ethically and equitably are outlined.
Researchers and research organizations acknowledge the importance of paying research participants but often overlook the process of providing participant payments as a locus for improving equity and inclusion in clinical research. In this conceptual paper, we argue that participants’ lived experiences and social context should be recognized and respected when developing these processes.
Methods:
We consider how participant payment processes that require specific payment types, delay the timing of payment, or require sharing sensitive information may impose barriers to equitable research. Building on findings from empirical research of participants’ perspectives on respect in research and a relational ethics framework of person-oriented research ethics, we explore how researchers and research organizations can better demonstrate respect through the research participation payment process.
Results:
We propose five considerations for demonstrating respect when providing payment: (1) practice cultural humility, (2) be mindful of socioeconomic factors, (3) be flexible, (4) be transparent, and (5) maintain open communication. These considerations are intended to address the lack of existing ethical guidance around the process for participant payments and promote more inclusive clinical research. We provide a set of sample questions for research teams to consider how they could modify their payment processes to better demonstrate respect.
Conclusions:
By better demonstrating respect for participants when providing payment, researchers can work toward ensuring that their research procedures are more inclusive, respond to the needs of diverse communities, and result in more equitable relationships with participants.
In a prospective, remote natural history study of 277 individuals with (60) and genetically at risk for (217) Parkinson’s disease (PD), we examined interest in the return of individual research results (IRRs) and compared characteristics of those who opted for versus against the return of IRRs. Most (n = 180, 65%) requested sharing of IRRs with either a primary care provider, neurologist, or themselves. Among individuals without PD, those who requested sharing of IRRs with a clinician reported more motor symptoms than those who did not request any sharing (mean (SD) 2.2 (4.0) versus 0.7 (1.5)). Participant interest in the return of IRRs is strong.
Advance consent could address many of the limitations traditional consenting methods pose to participation in acute stroke trials. We conducted a series of five focus groups with people with lived experience of stroke. Using an inductive thematic approach, two themes were developed: factors in favour of, and against, advance consent. Participants supported the idea of advance consent and highlighted trust, transparent communication and sufficient time as major factors that would positively affect their decision to provide advance consent. The results will be used to finalise a model of advance consent suitable for testing the feasibility in stroke prevention clinics.
The introductory chapter introduces students to contemporary issues in public administration research like Covid-19, environmental problems, social equity, public service motivation, and general challenges in public service.These contemporary issues and challenges have been identified by the National Academy of Public Administration.The chapter discusses how data can be manipulated to tell a particular side of a story. Therefore, data and research ethics are also covered. Students are introduced to ethics in human subjects research and associated best practices.
In the evolving field of advanced biopreservation technologies, the development of suspended animation (SA) is inspired by real-world challenges. In the context of space exploration, SA is seen as a solution to enable humans to undertake missions far beyond low Earth orbit, including routine travel to other planets in our solar system and beyond. While work on the socio-ethical and legal implications (ELSI) of space exploration continues to evolve, NASA has committed to make ethics a priority issue, making this a fruitful field for further examination.
Large language models (LLMs) offer new research possibilities for social scientists, but their potential as “synthetic data” is still largely unknown. In this paper, we investigate how accurately the popular LLM ChatGPT can recover public opinion, prompting the LLM to adopt different “personas” and then provide feeling thermometer scores for 11 sociopolitical groups. The average scores generated by ChatGPT correspond closely to the averages in our baseline survey, the 2016–2020 American National Election Study (ANES). Nevertheless, sampling by ChatGPT is not reliable for statistical inference: there is less variation in responses than in the real surveys, and regression coefficients often differ significantly from equivalent estimates obtained using ANES data. We also document how the distribution of synthetic responses varies with minor changes in prompt wording, and we show how the same prompt yields significantly different results over a 3-month period. Altogether, our findings raise serious concerns about the quality, reliability, and reproducibility of synthetic survey data generated by LLMs.
This chapter starts by framing the larger debate concerning universalism versus contextualism in ethics, largely mirroring the one between positivism and relativism in science. It proposes that pragmatism transcends this dichotomy by considering the role of general (and particular) ethical norms and values in context and by focusing on moral deliberation. The pragmatist approach to ethics is described before discussing the ways in which ethical concerns and forms of reasoning accompany every phase of a research project. The practice of using deception, which is both widespread and controversial in social and psychological research, is reflected upon. Finally, the chapter ends with considerations regarding mixed methods, multi-resolution designs, and their ethical commitments.
This article discusses ethical frameworks for planning and implementing composite research in the United States. Composites, defined here as archaeological materials with multiple genetic sources, include materials such as sediment, coprolites, birch pitch, and dental calculus. Although composites are increasingly used in genetic research, the ethical considerations of their use in ancient DNA studies have not been widely discussed. Here, we consider how composites’ compositions, contexts, and potential to act as proxies can affect research plans and offer an overview of the primary ethical concerns of ancient DNA research. It is our view that ethical principles established for analyses of Ancestral remains and related materials can be used to inform research plans when working with composite evidence. This work also provides a guide to archaeologists unfamiliar with genetics analyses in planning research when using composite evidence from the United States with a focus on collaboration, having a clear research plan, and using lab methods that provide the desired data with minimal destruction. Following the principles discussed in this article and others allows for engaging in composite research while creating and maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders.
New religious movements are often described as bizarre and sinister. Direct acquaintance, however, often gives a different impression from media portrayals and even from some academic writing. After decades of undertaking fieldwork, the author George Chryssides discusses his experiences, as well as studies by other scholars, and the issues that fieldwork involves. How do one's personal beliefs and lifestyle impinge on field research? How involved should a participant–observer become? How should we assess what we are told by insiders and ex-members? What ethical problems does field research create? How should we engage in online fieldwork, arising from the increasing use of the Internet, accelerated by the Covid pandemic? These are among the issues which this Element explores, and which will be of interest both to field researchers and to those who read about the fieldwork of others.
Advance consent could allow individuals at high risk of stroke to provide consent before they might become eligible for enrollment in acute stroke trials. This survey explores the acceptability of this novel technique to Canadian Research Ethics Board (REB) chairs that review acute stroke trials. Responses from 15 REB chairs showed that majority of respondents expressed comfort approving studies that adopt advance consent. There was no clear preference for advance consent over deferral of consent, although respondents expressed significant concern with broad rather than trial-specific advance consent. These findings shed light on the acceptability of advance consent to Canadian ethics regulators.
At its heart, this is a book about the social and political lives of Syrians who rose up against the Assad regime and found themselves governing their own affairs for a sustained moment in time. We will consider, in the coming pages, how they understood the new authoritarianism of the Islamic State in Raqqa, the transition from popular protest to a kind of elite consolidation in Saraqeb, the deprivation under siege in Darayya, and the semi-anarchic choreography of violent competition in eastern Aleppo. Before delving into our findings, we will spend a few pages discussing the methods we mobilized in the service of this research and the means by which we designed (and redesigned) our study along the way. While some readers may wish to skip this look behind the curtain, we want to offer transparency about the means employed, the challenges that arose, and the quandaries therein.1
This chapter explores the nature of the work that researchers in the social and behavioral sciences do through a discussion of the ethical principles that ought to guide their work. Since academic researchers have different perceptions and attitudes regarding what constitutes (un)ethical research, we offer an overview of what is considered best practices in social and behavioral science research. This work focuses primarily on the ethical issues related to the design, development, implementation, and publication of research projects. It concludes with a guide for assisting research teams and research ethics committees in assessing the honesty, authenticity, and accountability of their research programs.
The risk of creating cerebral organoids/assembloids conscious enough to suffer is a recurrent concern in organoid research ethics. On one hand, we should, apparently, avoid discovering how to distinguish between organoids that it would be permissible (non-conscious) and impermissible (conscious) to use in research, since if successful we would create organoids that suffer. On the other, if we do not, the risk persists that research might inadvertently continue to cause organoids to suffer. Moreover, since modeling some brain disorders may require inducing stress in organoids, it is unclear how to eliminate the risk, if we want to develop effective therapies. We are committed to harm avoidance but hamstrung by a presumption that we should avoid research that might tell us clearly when suffering occurs. How can we negotiate this challenge and maximize the therapeutic benefits of cerebral organoid research? The author interrogates the challenge, suggesting a tentative way forward.
The possibility of consciousness in human brain organoids is sometimes viewed as determinative in terms of the moral status such entities possess, and, in turn, in terms of the research protections such entities are due. This commonsense view aligns with a prominent stance in neurology and neuroscience that consciousness admits of degrees. My paper outlines these views and provides an argument for why this picture of correlating degrees of consciousness with moral status and research protections is mistaken. I then provide an alternative account of the correlation between moral status and consciousness, and consider the epistemic ramifications for research protections of this account.
Advance consent presents a potential solution to the challenge of obtaining informed consent for participation in acute stroke trials. Clinicians in stroke prevention clinics are uniquely positioned to identify and seek consent from potential stroke trial participants. To assess the acceptability of advance consent to Canadian stroke clinic physicians, we performed an online survey. We obtained 58 respondents (response rate 35%): the vast majority (82%) expressed comfort with obtaining advance consent and 92% felt that doing so would not be a significant disruption to clinic workflow. These results support further study of advance consent for acute stroke trials.