Transcript Research ethics - Newcastle University

Research ethics
Jan Deckers
School of Medical Sciences Education
Development
Email: [email protected]
Objectives
• To reflect on what (research) ethics is.
• To develop your skills as an ethical
researcher.
• To prepare yourself to apply for ethical
approval from research ethics committees.
What is ethics?
• Jamieson, 1990, p. 479: ‘In my view moral theorising is
something that real people do in everyday life. It is not just the
domain of professors, expounding in their lecture halls. Moral
theorising can be found on the highways and byways,
practised by everyone from bartenders to politicians ... the
result of this theorising hardly ever leads to the creation of a
full-blown moral theory. Generally we are pushed into
theorising by pragmatic considerations … we are usually
pushed out of it by conversational closure – one of us gets our
way, or we agree to disagree …’
• Jamieson, 1990, p. 477: ethics is also about arguing why
some moral theories have ‘coercive power’
• A definition: ethics is about evaluating/justifying particular
actions
(Reference: D. Jamieson, Method and moral theory, in P. Singer (ed.). A Companion to Ethics, pp.
476-490.)
What is bioethics?
• the study of how human actions that affect
biological organisms can or can’t be
justified
Why do we need ethics?
• Many (or all?) people feel the need to justify their
behaviour – to explain why their behaviour is
(un)acceptable = subjective aspect
– These explanations often relate actions to principles.
– A theory is an account of which principles should be
followed.
• Many (or all?) things deserve moral consideration
= objective aspect
• So: Ethics as something that is both chosen and
unchosen …
Objective dimension: What sorts of
things should we value?
• Key questions
– Which things are proper objects of ‘moral
consideration’?
– How much ‘relative moral significance’ should we give
to different things?
• Key distinction
– Intrinsic value: value for oneself
– Instrumental/use value: value for others
Different value theories
• Strong anthropocentrism (speciesism)
• Weak anthropocentrism
• Animal-centred approaches: Pathocentrism (‘animal
welfarism’) and animal rights ethics
• Biocentrism
• Ecocentrism
Two components: ethics and metaethics
• Ethics
– a theory about the values/principles that should guide
our actions
• Meta-ethics
– a theory of the status of values/principles
Three meta-ethical positions
• Moral absolutism
– I know that polluting (in this situation) is wrong
Three meta-ethical positions
• Moral absolutism
– I know that polluting (in this situation) is wrong
• Moral relativism
– Polluting (in this situation) is neither right nor wrong
Three meta-ethical positions
• Moral absolutism
– I know that polluting (in this situation) is wrong
• Moral relativism
– Polluting (in this situation) is neither right nor wrong
• Pyrrhonian moral scepticism
– I believe/think that polluting (in this situation) is wrong
Suspending judgment and acting
resolutely
• A Pyrrhonian moral sceptic will suspend judgment about
the moral values adopted by others.
• Tolerance in principle ≠ tolerance in practice
– A lack of certainty regarding the universalisability of
one’s own values need not go hand in hand with a
failure to act resolutely.
Pyrrhonian moral scepticism
• A school of thinking named after Pyrrho
– a Greek philosopher who lived from c. 360 to c. 270
BC
Two dimensions to (research) ethics
• a/ Law and professional guidelines
• b/ Reflection
How does it work?
• a/ Establish knowledge of the relevant
legal and professional guidelines
• b/ Exercise your ability to reflect........How?
The tools of the trade
• Principle of non-contradiction
• Analogies and thought experiments
Principle of non-contradiction/consistency
• Example:
A researcher who carries out research
on patients with advanced dementia
says the following:
“I believe that researchers who want to carry
out research on patients should only proceed
if patients give their voluntary, informed
consent to taking part in the research.”
The use of analogies
• Example:
– When a research project is likely to kill me, research
should not proceed.
↓
– When a research project is likely to kill others,
research should not proceed.
• What is at work here is the principle of
universalisability
The use of analogies
• Example:
– When a research project is likely to kill human
research subjects, research should not proceed.
↓
– When a research project is likely to kill nonhuman
research subjects, research should not proceed.
The use of thought experiments
• A thought experiment is an analogy between a real case
and an imaginary case whereby the latter is claimed to
shed light on how to handle the former
– E.g. Peter Singer (bioethicist at Princeton University) uses the
following thought experiment:
• a child who has fallen into a shallow pond. It cannot swim and is about to
drown. You stand by the pond. Rescuing the child is easy. Should you do it?
• How about children who are ‘drowning’ in distant places?
Why use analogies and thought
experiments?
• The need to exercise one’s moral imagination
– Have all the options been considered?
– What are the benefits and disadvantages of the
different options?
Some common ethical theories
• Consequentialism
• Deontology
• Principlism
Consequentialism
• Focus on consequences
Example:
Utilitarianism: consequences are
measured in terms of whether or not they
produce happiness
Deontology
• Focus on rules and motives
Principlism
The ‘four principles’ approach:
1. Autonomy (self-determination)
2. Beneficence (well-being)
3. Non-maleficence (no harm)
4. Justice
(1&4 are deontological?; 2&3 are
consequentialist?)
= a very popular approach in bioethics
Example: the use of financial incentives in
research
• Is it acceptable to provide financial
incentives in the recruitment of research
participants?
Applying the four principles
• 1. Does it respect the autonomy of
research participants?
– Could the fact that an incentive is being
provided undermine their autonomy?
• 2. Does it promote beneficence?
– It may be done to promote the well-being of
future patients, but it might undermine the
well-being of participants (e.g. their health
may be jeopardised).
• 3. Is it non-maleficent?
– Could paying someone for a service ever be
harmful to them? e.g.:
• blood donation
• tattoo adverts (M. Sandel, What money can’t buy. The
moral limits of markets. Allen Lane, 2012.)
• 4. Is it just?
• Is it legal?
• Other considersations, e.g.:
– Would I like to be treated like that? (The “how would you
feel....” test, or “don’t do unto others what you would not
want others to do unto you”)
Case 1
• James Strong is a researcher who has drafted an
information sheet that he would like to use to recruit
research participants. He includes the following:
– ‘This research will not expose you to any risks as
previous research has not found any evidence that
the D drug is harmful. This research merely repeats
what has already been shown by other studies, so
you can trust what we are going to do. This research
has already been funded and it has also been granted
ethical approval from Newcastle University’s
Research Ethics Committee.’
Case 2
• Claire is working on a research project aimed at making
tomato plants more resistant to frost. She hopes that
isolating a gene from a flounder fish which can resist
very cold temperatures and inserting this gene into
tomato plants will make these plants resistant to frost.
Case 3
• David does not support animal experimentation.
Newcastle University are building a new facility to
develop its research on animals. David wants to stop the
University from building this facility, and speak up for the
plight of animals. David decides to organise a protest in
Newcastle with some like-minded people. They take to
the streets and shout ‘stop the animal lab’. Afterwards,
they go to the pub for a bar meal. David orders a pint of
lager and a lamb pie with chips.
Conclusions
• Ethics is about the attempt to justify particular
actions.
• In bioethics, the focus is on biological organisms.
• Logic and the making of valid analogies are the
tools of the trade.
• Various formal theories exist on what ethics should
be about, including consequentialism, deontology,
and the 4 principles approach.
• Research ethics focuses on ethical issues in
research: many institutions have ‘research ethics
committees’ and demand approval from them
before research projects can commence.