Dear David,
The "do no harm" is ok for practice that is based on existing protocols.
When doing new things, what ethics committees look for is ³public benefit².
Doctors can kill patients under both conditions.
Researchers are allowed to lie, cheat, deceive, connive, exploit and even
break the law (under some circumstances) if their project is deemed to
have possible public benefit that outweighs the risks etc.
It is unethical, in Australia, for government funded academics to
undertake research that has a zero or miniscule possibility of producing
outcomes of benefit to the public.
Who decides whether a project/method can possibly produce beneficial
outcomes?
Peers.
keith
On 3/07/2015 10:04 am, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design on behalf of David Sless"
<[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Hi All
>
>Just to add some footnotes to the excellent contributions on this thread.
>
>I agree with Gunnar that the scientistsı approach to ethics may not suite
>design. Perhaps the doctorsı ethic of 'do no harmı is a better starting
>point for designers.
>
>Informed consent forms are sometimes badly designed and make little sense
>to the people who sign them.
>
>Few designers collect pre and post data on unintended effects or
>consequences.
>
>We still have a long way to go.
>David
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|