Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the biological level of analysis.

Introduction

  • State what you are doing in the essay 
    • This essay will attempt to offer a balanced review of ethical considerations related to research at the biological level of analysis (BLA). 
  • Define the biological level of analysis 
    • The biological level of analysis (BLA) states that all cognitions, emotions and behaviours have a physiological basis. 
  • Describe ethical considerations 
    • In psychology, ethics must be considered to ensure participants (humans and animals) are not harmed and that research conducted is ethically valid
    • Researchers should always conduct research in an ethical manner and studies should always be critically evaluated for ethical issues. 
    • Ethical standards made by the American Psychology Association (APA) that all research done in psychology must abide by.
    • These ethics are: 
      • Protection of participants
        • Participants should be protected from physical and mental harm and distress 
        • This includes humiliation, stress, injury, etc.
        • Participants should not be forced to reveal personal information. 
      • Consent 
        • Participants must be informed of the true aims and nature of research before giving consent 
        • Sometimes it is not possible to give full information about research. 
          • Participant bias: knowing the true aims of a study may affect participants' behaviour and thus the results of a study 
          • It is considered acceptable not to give full informed consent if no harm is expected 
        • A guardian or family member should also give consent to the study if the participants are 
          • Children under 18 years of age 
          • Adults incompetent of understanding the true nature and aims of the study 
      • Right to withdraw
        • Participants should be informed of their right to withdraw their participation and data at any time in the study (even at the end) without penalty. 
      • Confidentiality 
        • Data collected in a study should remain confidential and anonymous to protect participants from possible consequences that may result from their data 
      • Deception
        • Deception should be avoided
        • But slight deception is considered acceptable if: 
          • Participant bias would result from participants knowing the true aims of the study 
          • The research has potential significant contribution 
          • It is unavoidable 
          • The deception does not cause any distress to the participant, including upon being informed of the deception
        • If deception is involved, informed consent is not obtained 
        • Any deception must be revealed at the earliest opportunity 
      • Debriefing 
        • Participants should leave the study without undue stress 
        • Findings of the research should be made available to participants as soon as possible 
        • Any deception must be revealed and justified 

Body

Study 1: Money - "David Reimer" (1974)

Method:
  • One identical twin boy had his penis burnt off by accident during circumcision 
  • Money advised the boy's parents to castrate him and raise him as a female. 
  • Money interviewed the twins once a year and used the findings to support his theory of gender neutrality - all people are born gender neutral and the environment determines gender-specific behaviour. 
  • At the age of 14, Brenda was told she was born a boy, and decided to turn into a boy named David. 
Ethical issues of this study:

There were a set of ethical issues in this study, which include: 

Informed consent 

  • Money published scientific articles using this case study as evidence to support his theory. 
  • Neither the twins nor their parents gave informed consent to the twins being in a study. 
Withdrawal 
  • Lack of knowledge of the study means they were not informed of their right to withdrawal 
Debriefing 
  • Family was not debriefed 
Confidentiality 
  • In the publications, Money revealed the case and identity of the twins, which violates the family's right to confidentiality. 

Participant protection

  • Money caused physical harm by castrating Bruce. 
  • Bruce was forced to live as a girl 
  • Mental harm was inflicted as Brenda experienced confusion, bullying and trauma due to gender issues. 
  • The mental trauma that David experienced from the study lead to the suicide of both twins 
Deception 
  • The family was not informed of the true nature and aims of Money's study or that the twins were in a study. 
  • David was deceived into believing he was a female for most of his childhood and adolescence. 

Study 2: Schacter and Singer (1962) 

Ethical issues of this study:
There were a set of ethical issues in this study, which include: 

Deception 

  • Participants were deceived about the aims and nature of the study 
    • Participants were told the study aimed to test the effects of Suproxin on vision
    • But it was actually testing the two factor theory of emotion - emotion arises from a combination of cognition and arousal - using adrenaline 
  • All participants were deceived about the injection they were receiving 
    • Participants were told they were receiving an injection of Suproxin (a drug that does not exist) 
    • But they were actually receiving adrenaline or a placebo (saline solution) 
  • Furthermore, some participants were given false side effects of the adrenaline injection that they were given 
    • Headache, numbness, itchiness in the feet 
  • But deception was used because: 
    • Participant bias would result from participants knowing the true nature of the study
    • The research has potential significant contribution to understanding the causes of emotion 

Consent 

  • Participants were not informed of the true nature and aims of the study before giving consent. 
    • They did not know that the study aimed to investigate the two factor theory of emotion 
    • They did not know that they would be receiving adrenaline or placebo injections
    • Some participants did not know the true effects of the adrenaline injection they were given 
      • They were either given false effects or no effects
  • But being fully informed of the true nature and aims of the study may result in participant bias 
  • Participant protection 
    • Researchers did not protect participants 
      • Participants may have had a harmful reaction to the adrenaline 
      • Researchers did not ensure that participants would not experience harm from the injection 

Debriefing 

  • Participants were adequately debriefed 
  • Deception was revealed and justified

APA Guidelines for Animal Research

  • Tries to avoid harm to animals 
    • But harm may still be inflicted on animals, 
      • The research may potentially provide significant benefit to the health or welfare of humans or other animals 
      • If it is unavoidable 
  • If the procedure would cause pain to humans, it should be assumed that it will cause pain to animals 
  • Animal welfare should be monitored 
    • Animals should be euthanized as soon as possible if research 
      • causes long term/serious harm 
      • Affects their ability to live  
        • normally 
        • Pain-free 

Study 3: Berthold (1849) 

Ethical issues of this study
There were a set of ethical issues in this study, which include: 

Participant protection 

  • Berthold castrated roosters to study the effects of testosterone (secreted by the testes) on behaviour 
  • May have caused distress to the roosters after testicles were surgically removed 
  • But the research provided significant benefit to the understanding of the effects of the hormone testosterone 
    • This knowledge could benefit the health of humans and other animals 

Consent 

  • Roosters could not be fully informed about the study 
  • Roosters could not give consent 
  • But roosters would not be able to understand if they were being studied 
    • Therefore, it would not be possible to gain informed consent 

Withdrawal 

  • Roosters could not express any desires to withdraw from the study 
Debriefing 

  • Roosters were not debriefed 
  • But since they are animals and they did not know they were in a study, they would not desire a debriefing 

Animal ethics 

  • The welfare of the roosters was not monitored 
  • It was found that when testes were replaced, they did not re-establish a neural connection 
    • Berthold had done permanent damage to the roosters that may have affected their ability to live a normal, pain-free live
    • But he did not euthanize them 

Study 4: Rosenzweig and Bennett (1972) 

Ethical issues of this study
There were a set of ethical issues in this study, which include:

Participant protection

  • Researchers placed rats in enriched and deprived environments to study the effects of the environment on brain plasticity 
  • May have caused distress to the rats living in the deprived environment 
  • Rats were euthanized to study their brains 
  • But the research provided significant benefit to the understanding of the effects of the environment on brain plasticity 
    • This knowledge could benefit humans and other animals 

Consent 

  • Rats could not be fully informed about the study 
  • Rats could not give consent 
  • But rats would not be able to understand if they were being studied 
    • Therefore, it would not be possible to gain informed consent 

Withdrawal 

  • Rats could not express any desires to withdraw from the study 
Debriefing 

  • Rats were not debriefed 
  • But since they are animals and they did not know they were in a study, they would not desire a debriefing 

Animal ethics 

  • The welfare of the rats was not monitored 

Conclusion 

  • Ethical considerations in all research in psychology includes, 
    • Protection of participants from harm Consent
    • Withdrawal
    • Confidentiality 
    • Deception 
    • Debriefing 
  • But there are slight exceptions for consent and deception 
  • Animal research has slightly different ethical considerations 
    • Differences regard harming participants and ethical euthanasia