Discuss+ethical+considerations+related+to+research+at+the+biological+level+of+analysis.+(Maia)

I. Ethical basics: A. Ethical considerations are standards set for researchers in order to prevent their experiments from harming the participants. Before performing an experiment, researchers must consider what is appropriate to do to the experiments in a study.

B. All research needs to be conducted in a way that respects the dignity of the participants, whether they are humans or animals.

C. Informed consent – participants must be informed about the study and its procedure and give their formal agreement to participate. This can be done by use of a contract or other document.

D. Deception – sometimes deception is necessary because if the participants knew the true nature of the experiment, it could affect the results. In general, deception should not be used. However, if it is used, it must be used with discretion and must not cause any stress to the participants. If used, the necessity of deception must also be explained to the participants during the debriefing.

E. Withdrawal from a study – participants must be made aware that they have the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time or revoke their individual data at the end of the study if they wish.

F. Confidentiality – all information obtained in a study must be kept confidential. In most situations, all participants must remain anonymous.

G. Protection from physical and mental harm – it is unethical for a researcher to perform an experiment that in any way harms, demeans, embarrasses, or stresses a participant, or forces them to reveal private information. II. Animal research A. Modern technology allows researchers to extensively study the active brain, especially localization of function in the living brain. However, many experiments in brain research involve the inevitable harming and demeaning of animal participants.

B. Invasive techniques – techniques that physically damage brain tissue, such as removing (ablation) or scarring (lesioning). UNETHICAL because: 1. The potential harm to the animal cannot be determined 2. Any damage that is caused cannot be reversed 3. Causes pain for the animals and reduce their quality of life in other ways C. Hetherington and Ransom (1942) UNETHICAL! 1. lesioned a part of the brain called the ventromedial hypothalamus in rats 2. rats increased their food take dramatically, and often doubled in weight 3. although hypothalamus does play a role in hunger regulation, it is not completely understood.

D. It’s an ongoing debate – benefit humanity or prevent harm of animals? 1. FOR animal testing: Experimenting on animals is acceptable if and only if: a. suffering is minimized in all experiments b. human benefits are gained which could not be gained using other methods 2. AGAINST animal testing – Experimenting on animals is always unacceptable because it: a. causes suffering to animals b. the benefits to human beings are not proven c. any benefits to human beings that animal testing does provide could be produced in other ways

E. The three R’s – a set of principles that scientists are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the impact of research on animals 1. Reduction – reducing the number of animals used in experiments by a. improving experimental techniques b. improving techniques of data analysis c. sharing information with other researchers 2. Refinement – refining the experiment or the way animals are cared for so as to reduce their suffering by a. using as few invasive techniques as possible b. providing better medical care c. providing better living conditions 3. Replacement – replacing experiments on animals with alternative techniques such as a. experimenting on cell structures instead of whole animals b. using computer models c. using human volunteers d. using epidemiological studies (population studies designed to examine associations between personal characteristics and environmental exposures that increase the risk of disease) III. DEBATE: Use of PET scans and fMRI scans has helped psychologists identify brain patterns for dysfunctional behaviors (there is one for alcoholism, schizophrenia, depression, etc.) These patterns are present even if the individual does not show any signs of the disorder. A. Should doctors scan patients to let them know if they have a predisposition (the brain pattern) for a mental disorder? How would this affect the individual? 1. YES – the doctors should inform the patients that their brain scans match that of a mental disorder, even if that person does not show any symptoms of the disorder. It would give the individual the signal to monitor themselves and their own behavior in case that disorder really does manifest itself within them. As soon as any symptoms arrive, they will know to seek medical or psychological attention immediately. Ethically, individuals should have the right to know what conditions they are at risk for, so that they can be aware and prepare themselves for the future. 2. NO – the doctors should not inform their patients that their brain scans match that of a mental disorder. This would only add stress to the individual and may escalate them into their predisposed condition, especially if that condition is something like depression. If no symptoms are present, it is unethical to concern someone with a potential disorder that does not even exist.

B. Could technology be misused? Does the potential abuse of technology and knowledge mean that it should not be pursued? 1. YES – technology such as PET scans and fMRI scans can be misued. These scans are used to determine brain patterns and brain activity, and these are not the only factors in determining if a person is at risk for a mental disorder (genetics and environmental factors are also important). If they are overused, researchers may become dependent on their scans and not perform a thorough investigation of the situation before informing the individual about their risks. Therefore, YES – the potential for abuse of technology is more concerning than the benefits it may bring, and therefore it should not be pursued any further. 2. NO – technology such as PET scans and fMRI scans are completely objective and only as informative as the researcher reading them. If a researcher is experienced enough to be using such machinery, they most likely are liable to perform a thorough and fair evaluation of the individual before giving them such serious information about their potential risk for a mental disorder. The scans are only an aid that would help the researcher make a determination in addition to the other genetic and environmental factors that must be taken into account. Therefore the benefits of technology in psychological research far outweigh the potential for misuse, so long as the research is being conducted by reliable and credible scientists.