Research ethics is an interesting field because although most countries seem to support similar sounding values in our research ethics systems these systems are often radically different from each other. Likewise different disciplines approach ethics differently. In this post, I'm going to present four snapshots of research ethics from 3 different countries and 4 different disciplines.
First up is this excellent post: An inside-outsider’s view of Human Research Ethics Review From Greg Downey, a member of the Department of Anthropology at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. In it he discusses the ethics review of ethnography, both as a researcher and as a member of the University's research ethics committee. He responds to an article: Katz, Jack. 2006. Ethical Escape Routes for Underground Ethnographers. American Ethnologist 33(4):499-506.
Secondly there is this post: e-Research Ethics: A Note from Mallory Wober by William H. Dutton, Director of the Oxford Internet Institute , Professor of Internet Studies, University of Oxford. It is a fascinating post of a discussion of some of the ethical issues involved in online research.
Thirdly there is this post: IRBs vs. Departmental Review by Zachary M. Schrag, Assistant Professor of History, George Mason University, USA. Which contains a discussion between myself and Zach about the best form of oversight for oral history projects.
Finally there is my own post here: Research Ethics in the UK: The present "system" which summarises the current state of play in regards to ethics review in the UK.
If you are interested in cross cultural comparisons of the ethics review that is carried out in universities, this is probably not a bad starting point.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Snapshots of Research Ethics around the world and around the web
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
I hate Bioethicists?
Back in June Maurice Bernstein on Bioethics Discussion Blog had an interesting post called "I Hate Doctors and..." A Brief Study on Google Search
In this post he detailed his experience of his blog being found in 2005 by someone who had searched for "I hate doctors". Inspired by this Maurice decided to use google search results as a litmus test for the popularity of doctors here are his results:Doctors 18,300
Nurses 659
Lawyers 10,100
Politicians 994
Ministers 5
Police 704
Judges 676
Actors 623
Actresses 190
Plumbers 424
Used Car Dealers 127
New Car Dealers 7
Insurance Agents 10, Insurance Companies 684
Realtors 505
You might be concerned then about bioethicists, well not to worry, we may not be hugely loved, but at least we aren't hated...
Hated:
Philosophers: 154
Medical Ethicists: 1
Bioethicists: 0
Ethicists: 0
Loved:
Philosophers: 109
Bioethicists: 1
Medical ethicists: 0
Ethicists: 0
Of course the differences between us and doctors can be easily explained by the vastly smaller numbers of bioethicists, still it is nice to be loved!
On a serious note it is interesting that doctors are so unpopular, and an interesting discussion of if and why this is the case can be found on the bioethics discussion blog. My own view is that it is twofold. Firstly, it is easy for doctors, even with the best of intentions, to fall into the trap of paternalism, which I think makes them less popular. Secondly they are in a very hard position, where they will not, for a variety of reasons be able to help everyone, and trying to help can sometimes make things worse rather than better. Sometimes treatment can end up a little like the old lady who swallowed a fly, you end up having to chase the fly away with a spider which then means you have to add a bird to catch the spider and so on. Being the person who keeps introducing the new pests is not a popular position.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Public Perception of Research: One Example
An interesting example of the public perception of research can be found here: Autism Research Ethics - Is It Ethical to Deny ABA to Autistic Infants for Research Purposes? The blogger asks an excellent question, prompted by a scantily described study in the San Jose Mercury News: RESEARCH ON AUTISM IN INFANTS
He states:
The AP is reporting several new autism research projects aimed at studying early clues of autism and other disorders. One such study mentioned is by Dr. Stanley Greenspan which, according to the AP report, will involve two groups of infants - One group will receive intensive behavior training, the other will not; both will be compared through age 5. But is it ethical to deny ABA intervention to infants who are diagnosed or suspected to have an Autism Spectrum Disorder for research purposes?
I suspect the blogger is mistaken to be bothered about this research it is likely to actually be ethical. The main issue is actually the scanty reporting, there isn't enough information given here to truly assess the ethics of the research project. If his characterisation (That this project involves denying effective treatment to children who are diagnosed with Autism) is correct then he is absolutely right this research project would be unethical.
However there are two issues with the case he makes:
Firstly the relevant distinction here is that these infants have not, as far as I can tell, been diagnosed with Autism, they have been indicated to be "at risk" but not diagnosed. There is good evidence for using ABA with children diagnosed with Autism, less for those who are thought to be at risk. Thus this research project one would guess.
Secondly one might be concerned that during the 5 year projects some of the children in the control group become diagnosed with Autism rather than simply at risk. In this case you could be worried that these children would still be denied ABA. I would be stunned if this is the case, medical trials usually have criteria to determine when someone will be exited from the research. These criteria usually involved the development of relevant conditions and the need for treatment.
The issue here really is the scanty reporting:Dr. Stanley Greenspan, a psychiatry professor at George Washington University, is launching a multimillion-dollar study involving parents and babies at risk for autism or attention deficit disorder. One group will receive intensive behavior training, the other will not; both will be compared through age 5.
This gives you enough to be concerned if you have an interest in Autism and not enough to allay those concerns. This points to an ongoing problem, the scanty and over-simplified reporting of science in the public media.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Ethics and Blog Advertising
Given Brian Leiter's recent news about the possibility of advertising on the Leiter Reports, unarguably the most popular Philosophy Blog (Readership of 5000 per day!)
I thought I would open the question about the ethics of advertising on philosophy & bioethics blogs. Having browsed the home pages of many publishers in the setting up of the Motherlode I have been surprised to see how many of them have Adsense ads on their sites (the google powered context sensitive advertising). And a number of philosophy blogs have some advertising, mostly contextual. (Usually either Adsense or Amazon.
There seem to be two possible complaints:
1. Authenticity
2. Inappropriate content
In regards to authenticity I don't really see the strength of this complaint. If it is inauthentic to discuss philosophy and earn profit then there are bigger concerns than a couple of links on a blog, the whole of academic philosophy is tainted. I think it would be a concern if you were blogging on philosophy just for the money, but I can't see the problem if you are blogging on philosophy and happen to earn money. Blogging takes a reasonable amount of time and effort, and I see no reason why that shouldn't be rewarded, and blogs can and do cost to keep running. Take Leiter's site, the amount of content posted and the time this must take out of other research activities for those involved is high.
In terms of inappropriate content I think this can be fine, as long as the blog/site owners are careful to control the content so that it doesn't end up displaying inappropriate products. In this sense Leiter's direct advertising bypasses this concern since he can control who advertises with him directly. Of course few philosophy blogs have anything like the pull of the Leiter Reports and are unlikely to get direct sponsors which means contextual advertising is probably their best bet.
This can end up with sending the wrong message though if you don't keep a close eye on it. In a light hearted note I was surprised to find one of my preferred philosophy blogs, having recently switched to Amazon advertising to be advertising Playboy at me! Particularly bothersome since Amazon boast that their advertising works with your site content and shopping history to serve appropriate advertising. I am not sure what Amazon thinks about philosophers if they think that a dozen philosophy texts, a couple of computer bits and two books on child rearing for my wife = proud customer of playboy...
On a less light hearted note I was surprised to find a perfect example on the home page for the American Journal of Bioethics found here: AJOB who likewise have Adsense adverts on their site. Further some of the products being advertised seemed to at least be of a questionable nature, namely advertising for the storage of stem cells from cord blood & another site offering the quick and fast (within one week) procurement of organs for transplantations.
While the American Journal of Bioethics is being used as the foil here, I want to make sure this is not intended as a direct criticism of them, as I said many publishers use Adsense on their site, and so do many blogs on ethics or otherwise. Indeed I have contemplated using Adsense or Amazon as a means of generating funding for INPAB for subsidising conferences etc. Instead, I am wanting to draw attention to and awareness of some of the problems using context sensitive advertising can lead to and how to resolve these problems.
The way Adsense works is that it searches the text of your website and puts advertising into the boxes on your site that relate to the content of your site. Depending on the advertising you are paid either for every thousand views or for every time someone clicks through one of those advertising links. Google gives you the ability to block certain advertisers or advertising products to both prevent competition (so for example if Bioethics or the Journal of Medical Ethics started to advertise via Google, the AJOB could block their advertising) and to make sure adverts don't contravene the standards of the website.
Cord Stem Cells:
As you can see the advertising claims that banking your cord stem cells is the best gift you can give your child at £1120 a pop it had better be pretty good. But presently the best medical advice is that unless there is some particular reason that your child is likely to be need that cord blood in the future these services are best avoided. As the American Academy of Pediatrics states:'Families may be vulnerable to emotional marketing at the time of birth of a child and may look to their physicians for advice. No accurate estimates exist of the likelihood of children to need their own stored cells. The range of available estimates is from 1:1000 to 1:200,000. Empirical evidence that children will need their own cord blood for future use is lacking. There also is no evidence of the safety or effectiveness of autologous cord blood transplantation for the treatment of malignant neoplasms. For these reasons, it is difficult to recommend that parents store their children's cord blood for future use.'
In Britain the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have likewise warned against private cord blood banking.
So here we have a commercial practise which medical practitioners recommend against, getting defacto ethical endorsement by being positioned on the home page of one of the largest medical ethics journals. This seems clearly bad practice, and should probably be blocked by the AJOB.
Organ Transplants
This is more difficult to assess, since it is harder to tell if the site is a front for some of the worse practises in organ transplantation such as transplantation tourism, some quotes from their website do seem worrisome though:We can arrange that you can have the necessary transplant within 7 days. Prices are always depending on each individual. Finance is also available.
It is hard to see how they are not trading in organs, if they can arrange a transplant for anyone who can pay in 7 days...
We can arrange all known transplants. These include:
* Heart
* Lung
* Kidney
* Liver
The difference is that we are reliable in our offerings and can offer a quality service world-wide. We have locations world-wide and will use the best possible one for you. We put a high value on ethics. All donors are checked and adequate. Priority is given to all our clients
Important legal notice: we are not part or trading in organs!
Harder to judge, but probably better to err on the side of caution and not allow these adverts.
Is using Adsense wise when you are providing a portal to ethical advice? The answer to this question seems to be possibly when Adsense is used well and you have someone keeping an eye on the ads and blocking inappropriate advertising, then Adsense provides a means of income to underwrite your activities. However if you don't keep a close eye on what you are inadvertently advertising, you might end up being associated with products you don't approve of.
Do you use Adsense on your website or blog? How have you kept the advertising appropriate?
Another day another Blog
It seems that every day I am adding another excellent blog to both the blogroll here and to the Motherlode
I've given an overview of a few of the latest additions below the fold:
Happiness & Philosophy is a blog run by Matthew Pianalto, a Ph.D. student in philosophy at the University of Arkansas. If you are interested in theoretical understandings of happiness it is worth a read.
Ethics of Vaccine, is as you might guess all about the ethical issues involving vaccines. Ethics of Vaccine is run by the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, and keeps you up to date with news and views of vaccination.
The Personal Genome by Jason Bobe. This blog focuses on genetics, in particular those issues regarding personal genetics. A fascinating read that gives a good explanation of both the science and some of the ethical issues faced by the science of genetics.
The Stem Cell Blog is run by Christopher Thomas Scott, Director, Stanford Uiversity Program on Stem Cells in Society (PSCS). An excellent blog on both the science and ethics of stem cells.
Bioethics International this blog publishes infrequent but interesting articles on topical issues in bioethics.
Monday, July 02, 2007
New Teaching Philosophy Blog
Michael Cholbi has begun a new blog focused on teaching philosophy called In Socrates Wake. It is early days yet but so far it looks good.
Hopefully it has more staying power than Metanome which also focused on issues in teaching philosophy. I think it has a good chance given the increased number of philosophers active in the blogosphere these days.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Journal Table of Contents, News & Blogs via flash
This is a flash based rss reader which contains all the links on the other pages on this site. If you want a copy of it for your own website, just click the link below the reader.
If you know of any other ethics journals that publish an RSS feed and should be included please let me know via email or comment.
Cheers
David Hunter
Ethics Related Blogs
This is the contents of 46 blogs which are broadly related to philosophy & ethics.
If you know of any other blogs that publish an RSS feed and should be included please let me know via email or comment.
Cheers
David Hunter
