The effects of researcher precautions on perceptions of the ethicality of unobtrusive field experiments

The effects of stating researchers' precautions on perceptions about the ethicality of questionable studies were examined. The studies used were by West, Gunn, and Chernicky (1975) and by Middlemist, Knowles, and Matter (1976). The first study was generally evaluated more favorably than the second study. Women viewed the West et al. study more negatively than did men, regardless of precautionary information. Most important, precautionary information enhanced men's, but not women's evaluations of the Middlemist et al. study. Implications of these results for ethical decision making, publication policy, and the image of the profession are noted.

Undergraduate research and the institutional review board: a mismatch or happy marriage?

Many undergraduate research projects with human subjects are not reviewed by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Undergraduate research should be reviewed to protect subjects' welfare, ethically and legally protect instructors, enhance the reputation of psychological research, and enrich the educational experience of student researchers. A survey of undergraduate researchers (N = 53), all of whom underwent the IRB process for their research, indicated that they thought they had learned more by going through the IRB process, produced a better product, viewed instructor feedback more positively, saw the instructor as more of an ally, treated their research more seriously, and were sensitized to ethical issues. We recommend the IRB process for all undergraduate research.

The social control of human biomedical research: an overview and review of the literature

Social control mechanisms have become an important element of human medical research in the United States. At first largely intraprofessional, controls over human experimentation have moved increasingly in the direction of externally developed, bureaucratically administered, and formally sanctioned rules. This paper examines intra- and extraprofessional methods of control over biomedical science and reviews available research assessing their effectiveness in promoting researcher adherence to high ethical standards concerning the use of human subjects. Research suggests that intraprofessional controls (including medical training, peer influence, ethical codes, and disciplinary boards), are, on their own, inadequate to ensure investigator ethicality. However, studies examining external controls over biomedical research (government regulations, institutional review boards, judicial and state law), also suggest that extraprofessional regulations are often ineffective. Further study of both forms of scientific social control is needed, as well as research examining their interactive effects on investigators' ethical attitudes and practices.