Greetings,


As with all clinical research, deontological and consequentialist views
need to be considered simultaneously.  This is no easy task, hence the
indisputable need for training for ethics committees and IRBs.  It has
also been one of the many values of this forum.  But I think there may
be a more insidious issue here. 


In psycho-social research the potential coercion of student
participation is obviously a long standing issue, and one that will
likely continue to be debated, but I wonder not only about the ethics of
the research, but the validity of its results.  If the student (or the
related, but not identical species the graduate student) is under
pressure to participate how genuinely reflective of the population are
the outcomes of the study of a coerced sample?  Can generalizations be
drawn about the population at large or are they different as a result of
the circumstances of the study? 


With respect to evidence-based health care, many of our residents really
get it, but some just respond to meet my expectations.  (I hope this is
NOT the ranting of a superannuated prof.)  Some are of a mindset to
achieve excellence, but others always seem somewhat aloof or even
cynical.  Would I want to trust a study where these were all coerced
into participation?  And from which of the residents would I gain
meaningful information, the highly motivated or the reluctant?


I once used interviews with a group of residents for a phenomenology. 
They were not getting a grade from my seminar and I doubt they were
under any coercion pressure to participate.  I have reasonable
confidence in the conclusions drawn from the study.  On the other hand
they could have thrown a curve and the results could reflect what the
participants THOUGHT I wanted or even the converse if they were so
inclined. 


Always a pleasure to participate in this forum.


Best,
Joe Matthews


>>> Tom Yates  10/19/12 1:38 AM >>>
Hi,

I have a lot of sympathy with Iain Chalmers' arguments about
bioethics. He has suggested that, at least in health, ethics
committees should be evaluated as a public health intervention and if
found to do more harm (e.g. impeding research) than good (e.g.
stopping bad trials) then they should be banned!

I think I would feel uncomfortable with the offering of easy academic
credit for participation in research but only if there were a
realistic prospect that the research might harm the participant or no
prospect of useful information being derived from the study. Otherwise
this seems like a sensible arrangement with researchers gaining access
to subjects and students potentially learning from their participation
in others' studies.

It is very easy to lose sight of what we are trying to achieve among
reams of bioethics doctrine and regulations.

Best wishes,
Tom


On 19 October 2012 02:04, Amy Price  wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> At the university I formerly attended all projects  under grad and
post grad
> had to be pre-approved by the IRB. We were instructed re
ethics/limitations.
> If a proposal was submitted that violated ethics it was a fail. If one
> changed the project after the proposal (fail). If you wanted to do
something
> that strayed from the norm but still was within ethical boundaries one
had
> to supply written  justification to the research committee and submit
to a
> mini viva. If your proposal was rejected you had to take whatever
canned
> project was left over. We were forbidden to use participants we did
not have
> signed consents for and we were called upon to produce the consent
forms.
> Extra credit or renumeration was never offered. I got in trouble 2x,
once
> for  suggesting that our team collaborate on the 'perfect' paper,
share the
> stats data and turn it in as a group of equal contributors and for
enrolling
> the rented universities staff and townspeople so we could get a
reasonable
> sample size.
>
> Students were expected to cooperate in each others projects during
research
> weeks. Showing up and participating was mandatory but you could choose
which
> projects you participated in. We were marked on pre
> planning/proposal/ethics/ and writing up. We were not marked on how we
got
> along with our team members. This atmosphere made getting a
publishable
> project challenging but it was fair to everyone with no coercion. We
were
> told before the class sign up what the expectations were. I don't
think
> expecting mutual collaboration is coercive.
>
> If post docs or staff had research they wanted help with they were
expected
> to contact individuals after classes etc and were not permitted to use
the
> forums to proselytize .
>
> Best,
> Amy
>
> From: "Stephen M Perle DC, MS" 
> Reply-To: "Stephen M Perle DC, MS" 
> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:15 PM
> To: 
> Subject: Re: Ethics question
>
> Jane,
>
> I just stepped down after ~10 years as the chair of the IRB at the
> University of Bridgeport.  We had this specific issue come up a few
years
> ago.  A study that among other aspects asked students to fill out an
> anonymous questionnaire and in lieu of that students could write an
essay
> during that class period.  This was rejected by the IRB as coercive. 
We
> were told by the PI  that it is common for psychology programs to
require
> students to participate in research.  There was unanimous agreement
that
> this was coercive to require participation (how could it be other than
> coercive participate or don't graduate).  We likewise discussed the
idea of
> extra credit and concluded that this too is a form of coercion.
>
> I highly recommend the book "My Freshman Year" by Rebecca Nathan (a
> pseudonym for the anthropologist Cathy Small).  Dr. Small realized
after 20
> years in higher education that she didn't understand her students and
> therefore as an anthropologist decided to study them by becoming a
freshman,
> living in a freshman dorm and taking a full load of 100 level classes
at her
> own university.(some question the ethics of HER study)   She noted, in
the
> past a prof would suggest a paper and students would read it and be
> interested in talking about it.  One of the things she discovered was
that
> today if there is no grade consequence students will rarely do more
than the
> minimum, in any but the subjects they really think are important and
love.
> Thus, extra credit could be more coercive than financial incentives.
>
> Stephen
>
> Stephen M. Perle, D.C., M.S.
>
> Associate Editor, Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
>
> Professor of Clinical Sciences
> University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT 06604 USA
> www.bridgeport.edu/~perle
>
> Chiropractic & Manual Therapies chiromt.com
>
> _____________________________________________
> “True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of
> uncertain and conflicting information.”
> - Winston Churchill
>
>
>
>
>
>