For this week's advanced task, I would like you to engage with each other in a spirited but respectful debate about the ethical standards that were or were not violated in one of three classic cases of alleged research misconduct or unethical behavior.

1) Review each of the three case studies that follow this description. To keep the discussion organized, each case study has its own discussion thread. Select one case study and post your reply in the thread that goes with that study.

2) When you have selected one case study that interests you and thought carefully about the possible ways that this study violates the three major principles outlined in the Belmont Report, please read all student comments on the case study that you have chosen. Select an appropriate place to insert your own comment by replying to another student or to the main thread.

3) Your comment can be nearly anything as long as it follows these three simple requests:

A) It discusses the ethics of that specific case study

B) It discusses one or more of the three standards of the Belmont report (Respect for Persons, Beneficence, Justice)

C) It takes a specific point of view (makes a claim) on whether a given ethical requirement has been partially, completely, or not at all satisfied and supplies one or more reasons or pieces of evidence from the case study to support that claim.

Let's try to make this an excellent discussion. Good discussions are those in which:

A) Participants are well-informed (so please review the readings and videos beforehand)

B) A wide variety of issues and viewpoints are raised

C) Points are specifically addressed with counterpoints (rather than endless non-sequiturs (Links to an external site.))

D) Disagreements are about ideas and refrain from becoming personal

If you wish, you are free to go beyond the short descriptions and draw upon outside source materials or additional information you might find about each case study in supporting your positions.

Choose one of these and write comment.

CASE STUDY 1: The Milgram Obedience Study (1963)

There is a section toward the end dealing with a number of the most commonly raised ethical concerns.

What do you think? How was Milgram's study ethically questionable? What would a defender of Milgram's important findings have to say about these ethical criticisms? Click Reply to this post to join the discussion about Milgram.

Raw link to study summary: http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

CASE STUDY 2: The Humphreys Tearoom Trade Study (1970)

There is a section toward the end dealing with a number of the most commonly raised ethical concerns.

What do you think? How was Humprey's study ethically questionable? What would a defender of Humphrey's significant findings have to say about these ethical criticisms? Click Reply to this post to join the discussion about Humphreys.

Raw link to study summary: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/tearoom-trade

CASE STUDY 3: The Havasupai Blood Sample Lawsuits (2004)

There is a section in the beginning and toward the end dealing with a number of the most commonly raised ethical concerns.

What do you think? How was the Arizona State University study ethically questionable? What would a defender of the ASU study's principle findings have to say about these ethical criticisms? Click Reply to this post to join the discussion about the Havasupai Lawsuit.

Raw link to study summary: http://genetics.ncai.org/case-study/havasupai-Tribe.cfm

YOU NEED TO CHOOSE ONE STUDENT COMMENT TO REPLY:

Student Comment On case 1.

BILL:

I think Milgram's experiment was ethically questionable. First, the experiment gave the participants a lot of stresses, which can be seen from their trembling and sweating, when they were forced to give electrical punishment to the "learner." Some participants even showed signs of medical distress and begged to leave the experiment. Moreover, this experiment violated the principle of consent. Participants were not allowed the chance to leave the experiment when they wanted to, because the person was always requiring them to continue and reminding them that the experiment "requires" them to continue. Defenders of the experiment might argue that Milgram did notify the participants after the experiment that they did not actually do electrical shocks to the "learner." They would also say that the results of the experiment are worth the short-term distress of the participants. Personally, I think ethics comes first in responsible experiment and research, and the importance of the findings should be weighed after they pass the ethical test.

Student Comment On case 2.

Cathy:

I was shocked at how Humprey's study was conducted. Humprey's study was ethically questionable because it violated the privacy of those being surveyed. Humprey pretended to be one of groups without giving them prior knowledge and observing them publicly without their previous consents. Humprey even traced to the profile of the surveyed through the information he obtained in a false "social health survey" and their license plates. Restroom was supposed to be a very private place but Humprey violated this privacy by not informing the surveyed in advance. The defender of Humphrey's significant findings would say that if the experiment were not carried out in this way, it would have obtained accurate information about same-sex behaviors. However, I think no matter how important the data is, it is still first priority to obey the general rules for research experiments and not violate the basic rights and dignity of those being surveyed.

Student Comment On case 3

Sam:

I think the Arizona State University researchers who conducted the Havasupai blood sample violeted their consent because they were not informed that the researchers were going to use their blood samples for other experiments. The Havasupai tribe was only told that the blood samples were going to be used to see if there is correlation between diabetes and genes which they agreed to. The researchers did an experiment of inbreeding, schizophrenia, and migration using the Havasupai tribe blood sample which are taboos for the Havasupai tribe. Not only could this affect the Havasupai tribe past history but it could also damage their name because of the inbreeding. A defender of the ASU study's principle findings would say, the Havasupai tribe agreed to give the researchers their blood samples which gives the researchers the freedom to do other experiments on them or the researchers knew the experiments they did were taboos but they knew the Havasupai tribe would have never agreed to it.