3 ms·
Human subjects research guidelines are very clear as to where the line is. If your research is gathering information about a person, then the subject is a human
by dcow 5y ago
Human subjects research guidelines are very clear as to where the line is. If your research is gathering information about a person, then the subject is a human and additional steps must be taken to ensure responsible conduct (this applies in your first example case which is clearly ethically problematic because the subject was not informed). If the information you are collecting, is about a process or procedure or general data, even if it is provided by a human, the subject of the research is not a human and it’s at least not by default ethically problematic.
In regards to lying, I find such use of misdirection to be arguable ethical because 1) pseudo identities are entirely normal and expected on the internet so encountering one should not cause anybody undue stress, 2) it is not fraud, so it’s legal and does not cause harm, 3) because the experiment would not be possible without the appearance that the request came from an individual and not a research team, and 4) because if submitted to a corporation none of this discussion would even be happening. And 5) because California law requires organizations/websites to provide this information (in cases the law outlines) when it is requested which to me indicates these type of requests are supported/good/normal.
The text says: “this is not a CCPA request I just have some questions about the logistics if I were to file one” and includes a reminder that there’s possibly a legal obligation to provide these details. It’s not asking for personal details or information about a person.
- mirker 5y agoI don’t agree with the definition of “human research” you are using. For example, Cornell IRB defines it as 1) extracting data from humans OR 2) collecting private information. The email collects information from a human, therefore, by 1) it is human and subject to IRB review. My understanding of the intent of IRB is to govern any research actions that directly or indirectly interact with a human. Even simple surveys or scraping reddit needs IRB. For the deception, you have to weigh the pros and cons. The harm isn’t very high but 1) it undermines public trust of research and 2) includes the participant in a study they did not consent for. The participant is not getting paid for their time and is in fact getting indirectly threatened/coerced with legal action. The IRB board of course makes all these calls. But it’s not “obvious” that the research is ethical. For example, research can be unethical _with participant consent_ if participants are offered too much money, because people will do _very_ bad things for large sums of money, so it’s basically coercion. In this case, there is an implication of legal action if the participant does not participate and they may not have an option to withhold their participation. Consider the alternative: “Hi, I am a researcher from Princeton. For your time answering these 4 questions, you will receive $50 and an opportunity to advance our understanding of ____.” [1] https://researchservices.cornell.edu/resources/irb-faqs https://researchservices.cornell.edu/resources/irb-faqs