Dear students get fully solved assignments Send your semester & Specialization name to our mail id help.mbaassignments@gmail.com or call us at : 08263069601

1. The ScienceGame
An Inlrciuction to Research
r'
in the SocialSciences
*Sl:;lhEcl,itiott
Neil Mci(,Agnew
SandraW.PYI<e
YorhUniuersil-1'
L r a r n r y o l c c r t 9 r c s s c o l i l l o g l , r g . r r r . r , u o r t c a t t o ru ! r r
I
^goo.s. Ncil |rlcK.
Tho sciencegamc: an inlroduclionlo f6soarclrin (he socral
sciencos/ NerlMcK. Agßc.r.Sa^draW. Pykc.-6lh ed.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalrelefencesand indcx.
rsEN 0. I 3.098583.X
l. Socialscrencos-flcsea,ch L Pykc.Sandri W tt. Titto
H62.P96 I 90{
:10t'.O7?-(lc2O
9l-4091r
C I P
DDDiC,4TION
To D<;tt<tid Carnpbell
for prouiclirrg a Iu.xurtou.ssttpply
o f i r t t c l l c c t u a l c a r c p a c h a g e s
Plo<lrrctiousupclvisron
nn(l intcriordr:sign:l(citlrFtivrc
,cquisiLionscditor:Petc..ilrnz.orv
ir4luagingeditor':Heidi lrrer.rrrd
Plodtrctioncoorcliuator':Tricia I(enn1,,
Covcrdcsigrr:DcsigrrSotrlcc
=E O 199{,1991,193?.1982,1978.1969tryPlerrcice.l-lall.lrrt..
=,4:5= . 6
=Str r Parrnrorru! ColrrntrnicnLionsOrrnr;r:rrry.
=€tr Iinglcrvood Clills, Ncrv Jcrsc5, 0?(il)2
.,ll ri,;hts ruscrvcrl. No llnrt of this book n,n1,'lralcplodtrce<l,irr rn' folrn or
lr1'urtl' rrtcnrrs,rvitliout pclrrrissiorrirr rvriting flonr tlrc publishcr.
I)rintr:d in U,rireclSLtrtcsof ,nrerica
1 0 9 8 ? { i t ) 4 ; t : l
I S t s N0 - 1 , 3 - 0 3 6 5 8 3 - X
ltlcrrticu.l'lnll Intcrrrhliuunl (Ul() t,irrriLctl.!tttt<lon
Prclticrr. l'lo II of .,trstrnlil l)ty. Lirnitcrl, S).drrcy
P r e n t i c c - H a l lC a n a d a l n c . , ' l b r o n t o ,
Preniice.Hall !lispononmericana, S.4., lu'lexico
Prcnticc-Hall of India Privatc Linrited, Ntw Dtlhi
r I Fr'öiitice.Hallof'Japln, Inc..'/bl1'o
Sirrtorr& Sclrrtstcr rsi;r l)tc. l,tti.. .Sirr4rrTrort'
liditorn Prentice.Hall <loBrnsii. l,tda., /lio rtt Jotttiro
=.-4!r'E
=+=
#!=
PrenliceIlall
DnglewoociCliffs,NervJerse)'07632

2. z
Ethics
IöN
Chapter Goal -----
To cxposeyou to llv cotnplasitiaso{ <:Llü.cql
issues uis.d.uis lesearclr, includitrg llta c-rt.ant
lo Lohicltthe specific cotüen! and odlrcrence
to etlücal coclesarc inilttcnccd /r.ybjo.s.
slereolypcs, polittcs, ctncl.sell.itttarcst..
Howrvouldyou dcscribca scicntisL?Wlr;iLLririrsor chnr.aclcristicscornc
to mind rvhenyou think nboutscicrrtistsirrgr:rru.irl'/Althorrglrcachof us
nrightgeneratea unique total list, at lcasl sorrreof u.srvouldno doubl
0greeon certainadjectives-incltrdirrg,pcrhllls,intclligcnt,creative,rvell-
educated,absenl.nrinded,analytical,objective,rational,honest,imparbial,
fair,andtrtrsLworthy.Thelast forrrdcscriptorsspcaltto t.heethicality/moral.
ity of the scien[ist.Cerlainly,scienceis basedon [he assunrplionlhat the ,
ethicalintegrityo[ its disciplesis of thc highcstorcler.Werewe not !o make
this assumption,the gameof sciencervouldbe a falce,a scanr,an endeavor
suitableonly for fools,dilettanies,and conar[isls. i
SupposeLhisrverc Lhecasc an<lsonrcrcscalchcrs"diddledtheir
data"-rnade il do rvhat they rvanted it to. Scie,n'Lific,literalure would
lhen be l'illedwith contradiciory[irrdings.
'lir
illrr.stratc,someinves[iga.
lorswor,rldhavcclcnr'<locrrrrrcuLirLiorrt.hirt.rltrnrocrlticlcarlcrshipstyleis
the nro.stproducLivc;anotlrcrrlisscntirrgclrrtclrof .scicnLisLswould pre-
sentequallyclearcla[u[hnl ilutocrnticforrtrsol'lcntlcrshillrcignsuprerne;
still oLherswouldespotrsea laissez.fairenrodellaud pclhapsa smaller
groupwould presentevidencethat lcaclcrshipsLylehas no relationship
!o prgductivily.Thus replicabilitl',n kcl,couccllliu sciculificlesearch,
beconresmeaninglessif data are ilrventeclarrdobsen,alionshre not pub-
lic and shareable.Obviouslythc utilit5,ol rescarchfirrdingsbccomes
minimal trndersuchconditions.
'l'his
assumptionof ethicalityis socr;ucialto tlrellracticcof scienceLhat
it nraybescenasthe pivotnlpoirrton rvlrichtlrcscicncc'seesawtcelers.Socinl
scicnccprac[itionclsto<lavitrc incrcrtsirrgll'sursiLivt:to tlucsLiorrsof erhics,

3. ,270 litlrics
rnorality,hunranisrrr,nnd civil rights. ovel the last dccadciucreascd
lirneand encrgylravegravitatcdarotrnclcthical issrrcs;eLhicsconrnri0.
leesaboundwichindisciplines,within univcrsities,and within research
organizalions.Indeecl,sonrecul'rentelforl is being clileclcclLowarclthe
establishmenlof an internalionalcodc o[ ethics for human research
(MedicalResearchCouncilof Carracla,l969).Nevertheless,the viervo[ the
inherentlyhigh level o[ rnoraljrrdgurcnLand cthicalit5,of scientistshas
pervedlo impedethe developntentof lormal eLhicscodes.For cxanrplc,it
was noLuncil 1966 that the AnrericanPsychologicalAssociatiourecog.
nizedthe needfor ihe cstablishmenlof a set of ethicalstandarclsirr nsr,.
chologicalresearch(AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,lg82).
RBLATIVITY OF DTHICS
Rulesof ethicsreflectlhe value subsLrat,aof a cul[rrrc.Just as r.,alucs
and otlrercultural conll)oncnts (tcchrrolog-r')var.1'lrorn socictl'to socict1.,
so too will echicalstanclarcls.For exanrlile.whilc LheNavahos,in corn-
mon wiLhour orvnarr<lrrrarr.vothcr culturcs.havc Prohibitionsagainst
lying.stcaling,clrcaLirrg,nrurrlcr,arrclrn1le.tlrc nros!ser.iouscrinresnr.c
thoseof incestand tvitchcrafL(l(ltrckholrn& Lcightorr,l g49).rrnorrgthe
SaulLeauxof the Bcrcns Rivcr',violcnccof nrry fornr(inclu<lirrgverl>irl
aggression)is sLrenuorrslyovoiclccl(l-llllorvell,lg40): I'et, nnrongthc
Hopi, wl:o also eschewplrysicaltggrcssior.r.vcrlral s,nrfirreis arr cvt:r..
presentfeaturcof conrntunallife (Dggan,1943).Both cultrrr.esrcgard
cornlletilionas beirrgirrcstrcnrcl..h:rtlt;rst<'rrrrrlhotht.c.et.ecoollcrir!iorr.
in conlrastt<lour orvnsocicLy,in rvlrichrrrt:ritis sclcctivclfilttilchc(l(o
both traits.Ethicalconcentsrelate(lto tlte,epressionof seNralit),shov
rgrealcross-culturalvariability.Fol the Iieraki nralesin NervGuinea..
pcriociof passive,tlrcn active.hortroscxrralitr.is regardcclns n rrecessarr-
1:rcrcquisitc!o uorrrr;rllrcLorosexurrlduvclol>rncrrts(lJcrreclict,l9:J6).
In adclitionto cross.cultrrralvariation.cthical standardschnngc
ovel'Lirne.As orrcnlovcsfrorl orrchislot'icnlllcriodto nnothct'.t.ntltcr
dratrrtrticitlteraLiotrsirr cosItrurclirslritrrrsilrc ilcconrl)arriccll>r'(lll>cit
rnosülyunrelatedto) cqrrrllyastonishiugnroclificationsin lnrvslrrd ethi.
cal concerns.ThroughouLnrucltoI rccolclc<llristorl'.wortcltrvcr.ercgar<lcrl
as chattelsol irrferiotbcirrgs,a vicrvrcl'lcctcclin the "rrrle<rfthunrb"ol
nineteenth-cent,uryEnglish conullonlarv,rvhichIegalizcda husbancl's
right to clrastisehis s,ifc with a ro<lnot chickcrthan his rhrrnrb.Strclr
pracLicescreatedno r:llricnlconllictol btrrrlt:rrlor the l)ct'l)ctfiltorsof tlris
codeo[ ethics.Orrly rcccntl)'ilrc wonlcngrndunll.vacqtririrrgthe sanrc
rights,privi)eges,and reslronsibiliticsas tlroseof the oppositesex(Brorvrr
& Seitz.I9?0).As Falucli(1991)nottrs.tlrc strugglclor equalitl,is an
tuloven1>rocess-trdvanccsirrtclsllcrscrlrvith cllisodicltcriodsol bncklash.
I-ivcnrvill'riua sirrglcclrltrrrcanrl giverrtinre t:eriod.corrsidelnlllc
varilrrr.cin tho ct.hir.llnr.irr<:iulcs;16,1.1'lrtcrl;rrrrlrrr.;rcticotlbr.r,nrioussrrh.
Olhics 1?I
groups uray be observect. .,ftitrrdcs atnollg rnctnbcrs of Lhe PenLagon
towar(l the ethicality and legality of a particular nrilitary policy are
likely to be incongruent rvith the attitudcs of their wives (Ellsberg,
t9?3). Ancl certainly lhe ethical slarrce of some Nazi researchers lvho
rrsedJewish prisoners as experinrenial subjecls rvas divergenLfrom that
o f lh e German "man-in-lhe-street."
Steleolypes may also excrt a powerftrl infltrence on ethical deci'
sion-rnakingprocesses.Considcr,for cxatlrple,the stereotypeihaL women
al'e more emotional, immaLure, and in need of more proLectiontiran men
are, That stereotype seems to influence a wotnalt's "right to die" (or more
formally, rhe "right. lo refuse life'sustaining tl'eaimenl"). Miles and Au'
gust (1990) examined the legal courLs'decisionsin "right lo die" cases'
One o[ !he qttcslions lhey asked involved lhe wishes of paLienls who
were on life-srrstainingtrcalnlepl ancl unablc to communicate with any'
one. Did the physician try to rletermine thc patient's owtr preferencesfor
cither contirrr,ringor terrlinntitrg lile sullport, baseclon previous conver'
salions? Or dicl [he cotrits lcavc lhe clecisionto sonreoneelse,such as a
fnnrily nrentbcr or hospital policl'? [rr ?5 1:crccrrtof thc cases in which
the patienit rvas rnalc-but in grrly l.l ,pcrccnüof Lltecascs in which the
llaLient rvas lenrale-clid thc llhysiciaD irf io ltgtrre out whal the indi-
i,idrral wanted. So rhe rncssirgois this: lf a rDan is in an irreversible
cOtltn, : cOnversation ['r.pr13 )'uilt's ill.lo cArr [c ttsctl as cvidence o[ his
rvislrcs eitlrcr lo clieol to lrc strstaitrccl:if it rvonran is in a similar condi-
lion, lrer Irrsband rvill probnltll bc lsl<cd to rnnl<ctlre decisionabout her
fatc (lt'{ntlin,1993,p. .102).
'l'[c
rclir!i6rrshipllc(rvct,rrsci(rrrct:irrtrlt.tlticsltits llccn frurrghl witlr
rninOr spats, lrrrrl silences. rlitrtY;e<l ex1:t'essiol-ts,and vicious, acrimo'
nious disputes. At times scieptific irrvcstigaiiorlswere severelyhindered
b1,et[icalrcopcerns stenrlring fyopr C[cologicalteachings. Consider, for
"xnrnlllc,
lrorv ltrogrCssirr rrrt.:tlicirtc':ls rctirr'(lctlby the rcligious stric'
rures agiinst nrulilation ttf lltl rlclcl llotly. WIitc (1955) [as provided us
rvith nrr invcptory of illrrstrrrLiorrst.lrnl hitihlißht tlre uneasy associalion
of scicuccnnrl rcligiorr.
Drrrirrga br.iefhitlcyou pcr.iotlirr r,hchistor'1'of science,lhc primary
injrrrrctibn to scientisls wns to search for the Lruth'ino maller what"'
.,ilntonitiorrs co seek knrtrvlcrlt.{cfrlr iLs orvrl .sal<ewct'e thc norm; if un'
scrrrpulous rninds usccl sttcfi ktlowlcrlgc irr an trnethical fashion, this
rvas irr no way t[e rcsporrsilliliUyol tlrt: scien[is!. If researchon methods
to rc(lucc prcjrrcliccupcovcrs u1'Lt11irrcLcchnirlt;csfor' 1l'ioducingattitude
chapge rvhicI tIc1 irru srrlrscrlrrcnlll'crrt;llo.1't:<lttl rttntriptrlaUeprisoners
o[ ruar as part of a braiDrvirshing;lrog|anl, il's Iro! the scientisL'sfault.
'l'hc
rrrorccotl!etnporarl' vicw. howcvtrr. rccogttizc'sthal "lhe double-edged
llotcnlialitl, ol'scicnLifickrtorvlcclgc;loscscLlrictl ploblonls for all scien'
iirt." (rnt"tica' Psyclro6gic:rlAssocirrtiorr.1982, '' 16)-tlrat is, lhat
scicntists lrnvc sotnc rtrslrorrsihilitl'fitt' tttttttsttll'sthcy spawn'
'lhis
mod'

4. crn stancc,conlbilrcdwitll a gerlcralcvolulionin stanr.larclsof humanr.tarianism and resoectror trr."tru,n",.r."")iri"", lrasforcedthe scientisl
;:i,ioj"!t"..J::r*X".
anclinro,r*,,,o,1.phitosophicai,-,tullä*,.,n,,a
rhe ."."1 ;f;i'"..il|,ff',;}T
aredebated
'e'rtirvr
ethicsandml.ni 0...o0,.areneirrrer."r;ij,,'llll';"lnl;,:ilT:ri:l#
culrure'bou'dani rin,e'r*J,
"rr,i.."ä,.,in,, berrndersroodin thc con-texl of tlre cultr.rrcLhfl[ esl)ousestlrcrn. Or','r.nn.,or"rnental the aIr.ocitiesofGenghisI(ha', ar,rrunl..o.."J'u.'"cI.,'."0.s,at t'e chilcrabuscdur.rngtheIndusrrialRevor'rion,^,1rräi"ir'',resof th. spanisrrinquisirors,anda( theheartres.t,.trnuio,'-ff äit'i,r'vi.,ram reflecrso'lv orrrorvnprovincialrilLrrcsantlotrr'.;,.r"r,irii,
'r,l',riuest
u.rsclucs,f ourownc.r_
il:'lJi.,^Jt;lfri,ll;i"^'"'oonrir.o'tulu'n,.'rr.,o.oro.urio,,'oinno',n"..rn
orou,.u.,uni"';;;;;i,T:;:ü::l'
trt:t'rvcIIrcgist* clisstrst'oui,i,,,on,
Et hics and t hc Social Scien tist
,''., lio'iä'i:;:;"i't"
rvhosestrbjccttnatteris (l) a.irnare,(2)r.eac.
:::::'"'rhanis; .']lr1!=ffi.T.:"ffi'J;'i:Jn
":::j
iff
'1,jl ;*:jl
9Jiof
r' orthegeorogis^r,mapp.ing.o.xi.',r,u.onrheu"lrli:j.rri':j," ^,.cnechemistanalyzingth.e.molecirla..,,.,.i.iir.ofacomplexo-,.,"i.iiJ
;:iil :::Ll'1.:T:"il:^"ol:::-'"""''i;;;; irsappearancebecatrseir is
sc^rrinyorou.uÄn,ilJ,L,:::;Ti"';;II,1lllffl.,f.;:Jn; :,i_:l*lrelaLedto altrrrisrn,child-rearin'*o.i;."r'f ynch mobbehavior,ieacler.ship,aurhoriry,inccsr,n..ot poti..i.'u],r,,i.,i"rlgrorvth,canccr.,cloning,rne treatnlen00f scrriz.ol;rrrcniir,1ro,r^tr'.tornr-all cr.1.out for artcntiorrto elhicalprinciples.A codeof .til.-".
"li.,.off,
is reall-r,meantto guideour behaviorso as to lx'otect(rrotcorrtraverrc)r'c rights,privircges,anclgeneralexpectationsoI others.
W1ryHavc a Coclcof Ethics?
A key reasonfor dcsignirgirncrc'courngingtlreacroptio.of a codeof ethicsis to inflict o. i,nllo.c*o,,r.,,r;-;;;'.senscof vartrcso' orrr cor.lcagtles'sccorraly,Lltc.r'rc-or'-lcssrrrrifrrrr.ilcccl)t,llrcc,f r.rrlc.sof co..duct hclpsro estabrishthu."ortrrr"y'"
"lr',ü'-[o
g.arartee sorncscrrseoffamiliarirya'd com[ortin interactingt;;;i, orhermcmbersof o.e,scrisci.pline'Thus someconcernsdressedi" .,ni.J cos.umereflectprotection.ism or elitismor isolarionisn.,,."ri.,..;;;;;r, generalrvorrl.abourrhcpublicweal' To porice.thuscienle;l;;;;i;;,;"d rveedour rhc incor.pe.lent,the insincere,or the unwortf,vtoi,f-tit.rsmainrainthe puriryof theprofessionare ver orher ftrncti..J ;a;' ;;;ron .o,r. of et,liics.such a,codelrelpsr)l'otectthc lltrbricfron.,.hn,li"iu,r,rrrrorelackirrg!hc tr.airrr.g
specified [or mertrbcrship in thc disciplirrc) and florl dcviants (Lhose
adequalely trained but practicing in unethical rvays).
To plotect the individtral practitioncr lrorn pangs of cotrscience,
gnarving doubts, and pcrhaps cven financial lr.rin through legal strits is
another, buI less publicizcd, valtre of an ethics code. How can scientists
be faulted ii their reseaich 1>rojectseerRsto lead to negalive outcomes
for their subjects, especially rvhcn LIreyscrtrpulorrslyfollowed lhe riles
ar'rdritrrals (includirrg ctlricirl llrohibitiorrs)acccl:tcclby their discipline?
]n some scnsc a code of ctlrics scrvcs sorncrvhaLLhc sirrnc frrncLionirr a
sqicnceas do qrrality contt'ol proceclrrrcsitr a fa<:loly.
E T H I C S Q U I Z
Bcfo rc contrtrcucitrgan irr.rlclrLhc.x:rrrrirr:rt.iorrol'syrr:cificslatcrncntsof
ethics, il nray be useful to sensilize yotrrself to sonte of the isstresby
completing the following qrriz-.rIn each case rlccide ii rhe key hgure has
b e h a ve dethicallyor not.
l. ProfessolV. S. dccidcrl to volc agninst arluriLtirrgJane Doe into
the graduale progr'rullbec;ruscshc lrird Ioclgctlarr official com-
plaint, charging onc of his nralc colleagueswith sexualharass-
, Inent.
Dthical Unethical
2.'As part of hel effor[s to I)rcparea stl'on[jcase for hel promotion,
AssistanL Plofessol It'I.S. aske<lhel gladuate sludenls lor tesLi-
monials concerningtlrc quality o[ her tcaching and supervision.
Ethical UneLhical
Rcscarchcr A. I). lrrrspublishcrl tlru rcstrlLso[ a largc sLtrdyon
!he attitudes of nrcdical personrrcl to ctrllranasia. Shc subse-
qtrenLly receivcd il t'c(plcsl for hcl tlala flom lhe American
Medical Associatiorrrvho wish to verify hel conclusionslhrough
a reanalysisof )rcl rlatu. A. D. lras rcftrsc<lthe reqtresL.
Dthical Unetlriclrl
4. ProfcssorC. S., as lrart ol his rcsporrsibilititrsas a faculty nrem'
ber at Fly-By-Night U, acts irs a sugrcrvisorof the research work
lol a rttrmbcrof grlrltrirtc strr<lr:rrt.s.'l'yllicully,this involves scv-
cral tliscrrssionsptior Lo tlrc lrcgirrnirrgof Lhc sLtrcly(perhaps
f-rvehours lolal), sonrc tliscrrssiorrcortccrnirrgthe analysis of
obtained resrrlts. arrd thc revicw of otrc or two Lhesis drafts.
I
rlterns for this quiz arc basctlon ;lrinciplcsschctcd frorrrtlrc Düricol Principlesol
Ps;cÄologi.sts(,mericanPsychologicllrssociatiorr.1992)and the Ellicol Principlesin he
Conduct oI Ilc:rorch ruith !lunun I'orticilttrntslrrrrcricirnPst'clrologicalAssocintion,
I 982).
J .

5. 274 Dthics
ProfessorC. S. and his stuclenLsalmostalwaysjointly publislr
lhesestudies,and C. S. is invariablyseniorauthor.
Ethical Unerhical
5. One of the assignmentsin a fotrrth.yearsociolog),courseon
researchmethodsrequireslhat studenLsmaintain a personal
journal or diary on family interactionsto.which a str.uctural
analysis(neLworl<approach)is strbseqlrentlyapplied.Onc of
the studentsexpressesrelucLance(on personalgrotrnds)about
carrying out this assignment.,Ihe
coursedirector,convinced
that the researchproceduresare acceptableand sensitiveto
the pedagogicalbenefitsof the assignment,rrrgesthe sttrdent
lo conduct Lhe sttrdy.
Ethical Unethical
1
P. T., a professorof physicaleducation,designeda studyon Lhe
"secondwind" phenomenonthal requiredresearchparticipants
to engagein gruelingand arduousfeatsof muscularstamina
a.ndstrength.The proposedproject,after compulsoryreviervby
the university'sResearchEthicsCommittee,is givena cleanbiil
of health.P. T., rnuchrelievedat obtainingelhicalclearance,
proceedsto conductthe rescarchwithout further indcpendent
assessmcntof the cthicalis.sucsirrvolved.
Ethicai Uneth ica l
Deceptionwas employedin a study assessingrhe relationship
belweengender.roleorientalionand self.esteem.Researchsub-
jects,prior to parlicipation,were inlorrnedof the r.equir.enlents
and purposeof ll'reexperimentto the exlentpossiblegiventhc
deceptioncomponenL.Freedomto withdraw from the stud5,,at
any tinre,wasemphasized.Follorvingan assessmentof gencler.
roleorienlaiion,all femalesrrbjecLs,irrespectiveof their actual
performance,were told thcir scoresrevealeda masculineoricn-
talion, and male subjectswere informedrheir scoqg,sreflecteda
leminineorien!ation.Meastrresof self.esLeen.rruerdthen admin-'
islercd.Immediatelyon corrrlllctiorr,srrlljcclsrvcr.cLhankctlfor
their participationand pronriscda cletailedr.e1:ortof tlrestu<11,.'l'wo
monlhs laler subjcctsrcccivcdLltc rcport. rvlrichfully.
describedthe deception.
Ethical Uncthical
NeuropsychologistDr. Rabidis conductingresearchon the cor.
lical changesin dogsthat accompanyor resull from repeated
severephysicalpain as inducedby rvhipping.
Blhical Unethical
Social psychologistF. A. is rcsearchingrhc organizationnl
slnrctureof ccltirirrvolunlirr.vgl'oul)s.lrritsrtrtrchns thcrc is a
8.
v .
I I
flienclly rivalry anlor)g lhcsc groulls, F. A. is frequenLly asked
by a club how they cortrparewith other groups under study' F'
A. does noL reveal any budgetary infornration btr! is rvilling lo
describe organizalionnl irierarchy and slyle.
r0.
Ethical Unethical
Repcarcher A. B. has been extremely forLtrnaLein obLaining
financial and oLher sttpporLior his rcsearch endeavors.He has
consistcntly oblairrctl lnrgc grltrLs lrom !hc Firm Foundation,
and his employing <llgarrizaLionis heavily committed to his
research in Lerms of ptrrchase of equipment, administrative
support, and so forth. A. B. has been scrttpulousin his publica'
tions to acknowletlgc the supporL of Irirm Foundation, since
Lheir financinl conLribuLionsmndc thr.:implementation of Lhe
Iesearch progranr Possible.
Dthical UneLhical
i1. The associaledirectorof a researchunil is aware lhal one of
the scienlistsin the agencyis behavinfin a seriouslyunethical
fashion.Althoughhe has brought this individual to task sev'
eral times for his violationof ethicalslandards,lhe behavior
persists.The associaledirectortakesno further action'
Ethical Unelhical
I2. Part of Lhecourserequircmctrtfor an irrLrodtrctorypsychology
courseis participationas a strbjectin an experiment'Professor
W. J. is using someol Lhestudenls for her researchon Lhe
effeclsof high arousal(inducedby applyingshockslo lhe hn'
gers)on memory.One stuclen!,whetrinlorrnedof lhe naLureof
ihe research,was reluctant to serve as a subjecl'The experi'
menter waveclasideobjectionsby remindingthe studenl Lhal
participationwas n cotrrsereqttirement.
Erhical U nethical
..rI3. A teamof researchersoblainedmeasuresof achievemen!motl-
vaLion,creaiivity,and liking for teacherirom childrenselected
from severalprivatentlrscryschools.The directorsof someof
!heseschoolsrcqtrestedcopiesof all the Lcstscoresfor each
child. Sincc!he rcsearchcrsfelLtlcJrendenLon the goodwill o[
the schooladminislralors for subjecls,they providedlhe infor-
maLiolrrequested.
Ethical Unethical
14. ResearcherR. P. has employeda gradualestudenl lo run Lhe
subjeclsthroughhis experimenton sensorydeprivation'Sub'
jecLsrvereobtaineclthroughan adverlisemenlin Lhecollegepa'
per, which stated that $25 would be.paid to individualswho
ivtr'tcrl !o particill;rLcirr so'te rcscnrchon "peaceand quiel."

6. Ethics
No further infornraiionwas providedb1'Lhegl'aduatestudent
when lhe subjectcameto the lab.
Euhical Unethical
15.As co-investigatorsfor a largegrant.supportedsttrdyconcel'ne(l
with the culitrral adjustmentprotllen.rsof new imnriglanls,X.
Y. and X. X. employeda numberof assisLanLsto conductstruc-
tured interviewsrvith a repl'esentativesampleof inrrnigranLs.
Prior to coniaclingany rcsearchparticipant,thescassisLanLs
were given exlensiveinstructionsby X. X. concerninßethical
issuesrelevantto the research.Nevertheless.it conresto their
altentionlhat oneof the assistantshasirnpliedlo intcrviervees
lhat lheir parlicipationin the lesearchwill reflectfavorablyon
their applicaLionsfor rvorhpcrnrits.Who beals resporrsibilitl,
for this breachol etlrics?
X.Y.
TheassistanL
X.X.
'fheassistant,X.X.,an<lX.Y.alcall [ul11.r'cs1>onsible
While the list of strchquiz.itcrrrscoulclgo ou arr<län, tlre l5 itenrs
plovidedarc probabll,srrflicicrrlto illr.rnrinatcthc cornplexitynndbrca<lth
of ethicalconcerus.Accordingto principlesacceptedb1'tlrc rrnet'icarr
PsychologicalAssocialion,all of the foregoingare unethical.
'l'hercfole
!o scorethe quiz,giveyorrrsellonc point for cachsccrrarioirr rvlticlt1'6q1
dccidedlhc l<cyfigtrrclradbchlvcrlor wilsllchlvingrrrrcthically.'l'lrccor'.
recLanswerlol ilern l5 is alternatived.'flrosc reatlersrvhoobtilirrc(lLhc
nraxirnumscoreof l5 are highlyserrsitizedto cthicalissues.
For thoseof us who achievcda lesstlran perfcctscol'e,thc follorv-
ing explainsLherelcvantprinciplebreacheclin eaclrvigrlet.tc(rrrrcricarr
PsychologicalAssociation,1982;1992).?
1. lndividualsshouldno!be deniedacademicadrnittance,advance'
mcn!, employnrent,tenurcor pronrotiou,bascdsolcll'on thcir
havingtrradeclrargcsof scxualharassrnent(Plirrciplcl.l l{tll).
2. Testimonialsshouldnot be solicitedfronrpersonsrvhobecartse
of rheir particularcirculllstances(e.g.,graclttatcsttr(lelltsLatrrs)
are vulnerableto undueinlltrence(Plinciple3.05).
3. Once rcsearchresrrltsarc 1>trlllishcd,rhc clarashotrltlttot ltc
witltheld frorn oLlrercoml)ctcntllrofcssiorralsas long as tltc
conhdentialityof the researchparticipantscatr be l)l'otected
(Principle6.25).
: P r i n c i p l e s f r o r l t t l r u l 1 ) 9 2 p r r b l i c r t i . t t ; t r c t t l c t t t i f i e t ll r 1 : r t r t t t t t l t e r 'r r ' l r c t c : t st l t o s .
fronr tlrc 1982 rcport rrrc l;rlr:lctl rvitlt lc(tr.rs.
4. Publication crediL shorrld re['lr:cLLhc relaLive contributions o[
the individuals involved' In the example' il would appear that
Prolessor C. S. clicinot play as mnjor a role in lhe research as
ttr" g.rau"r. sludenl' Ft"ihut,
."a
stgdent is usuaily listed as
principal author on nny multiple'aulirored arlicle thal is sub'
stantially basedon the studentis dissertaLionor Lhesis"(p' i609)
(PrinciPle 6.23).
5. Dthical conccrns rcgarding Llic dccision about whclher Lo con'
ciucLa parlicular researchsLudy are covcredby Principles A' B'
and C. The explicatio'''of thtt"'principles indicates thal profes'
,o.-r..."r.heis should respect a moral reluctance on lhe parl
of their sLudents"to tntty oul
"
ttttotth procedure" and "should
nor pressure them to peiform rhe procedure" (1982, p. 30).
6. An investigalor mtrs! carefully eva)uaic-theethicai acceptability
-
oi
"
pla.,r,ädsludy. Given lhe nature o[ the study in this exam'
ple, rhe investigator has a "serious obligation to seek eLhicai
Iär1..;Jtp.i.cipie A, p. 26). The approval of a review committee
does nob absolve thc rcsearcher from soliciling other indep-en'
dent assessm.n,, oi the ethical issues involved (r982' p' 29)'
iho study may also be a breach of Principle G' which re-quires
that the researcltcr plotccL strbjects from plrysical discomfort'
?. Allhough the invesligatorwas sensitiveto certain ethical issues'
the study as <lescribedillustrates contravention of Principles H
and I. There was no aLtempl on ihe parl of Lhe investigator to
clcucct ancl ,.nt.'u" any clrimaging conscqucnces for the indi'
viclual parricipants which may havc occurred as a resull o[ Lhe
deccplion.A,,g"' o' 'estnt"''c"U o[ subjects on discovery of lhe
cleceptionwas l)ot monitorecl'(Scc also Principle 6'15')
B. The proceclttrcscrnployeclby Dr' Rabid conLraveneprinciples related
to the hurnano t.untn*nt oi 'esea'ch animals Grinciple 6'20)'
9. F. A. has conLravenedlhe obligation Losafeguard lhe conhden'
tiality of inlort^tililbtoined-about LheseorganizaLionsin Lhe
courseof this rcscarch(PrincipleJ)'
10. Irr this example the support of the host insLiLutionhas not been
properly o.t no,uilJgoi in ttt" publicaLions(Principle 6'23[bl)'
l l . T h e a s s o c i a ! e d i r . e c t o r | a i l e < l t o b r i n g t h e s e u n e t h i c a i a c t i v i t i e s
t.othc a[tctltion of !he apprbpriate commiltees on eLhicalstan'
dards and prncliccs [or fhe cliscipline(Principle 8'05)'
12. "The investigator rcspectsthe individual's freedom lo declineto
participote ill or to wlthclraw frotn rcsearch ai any time" (p' 42'
Principle F). The invesLigatorshgu]d,have provided lhe-süudenl
*'ith a choiccof alLcrrrntivcactivitie! (Principle6'11 [d])'
a .
b.
d .

7. 278 Dthics
l3' This form of reporringis unethical,sincethereis no indicarionof any Iimitationson rhe informarionin termsof .utiotirir, or.validity nor wil'strre.rcu'. utrcmpt.to e's.rc t'at L'e i.[ornra.tion woulclnot be nrisusecl{nrincipteZ.OZ;.
14' R' P' did not adequatery<iiscroseaspectsofthc rescarc'rvhichmighr have influencecrihe sr,blect's*irii"g.ä;r',"1^.ii.,0",..
Also,R' p''s assistantsinrilarlf ärd not explainthe natureofrhe researchanclR. n. i. ,o"fän.iblc for .r.,iri"girr. eLhicaltreatmentof subjectsby his ernployee(principles6.0?ancl6.l land principlcsC ond Dl.
l5' In instancesrvherescverarinvest,igatorsa.d researchassis.
;i:i:iö,i,.i;i,:t;"?.:,,TT1i;_r:;xl;;l:H*lü(Principlec)' Further, ttiis exa,npteilr'strates the rrnethicaluseof coercionlo ltarlicipatein lhe research(principleIr).
ILLUSTRATIVtr CASE STUDItrS
In orderto proberhe intricaciesof ethicalconcernsin more<lepth,threestudiesconducLcabv 'sychologirt"*iti ir..'cxlrrorc.rrcr.cirr act;rir..r.'c
first,study, rcporrci bi. tvlilc;;nr (iöäi;, involvecldeccprio'.r paictvolunteersubjectwas tord ur^i i-',. r"'.päru or the experirncntrvas!oevaluatethe effectivenessof puni.t nriniln rearning.Througha fur.t^erdeceplion,the voluntecrsrrbject*ns tof,,nairo.as,.teacrrer,,,
a'cra.otrrcr.subjec!(actuallya stooge.inthc c,.,.,1llofoii',.
"*porirncnter)
wos ro acras "learner."Dachrime the rearneir;J;; ri.;k;;; ä.',i..L"u,uatask' the teacherwcs ro acrrninisternn .i*rr,. snock,'rcreasingthe i'.tensityof rhe shockrvith eachf^i1.,;.-i;;final deceptionrvasrrrarrhcstooge,communicatingby intercom*iln 1tr. teacher,complaineclo[ aheartcondition,*o.n..r tlat he.;ria"'iä,"inue, ancrcmitrecrsotrrrdsofpain w'en shockswcrc appliecr.s,ttrio.rr-u.*pressingconcernaborrtt.cconditionof lhe learnc.*:r: instructeclb.ytlreexperirnerrter!o contirrrrcthe experiment.'l'hcc'trciarquestion*^, ir,. e)itcnrro rvhichstrlljcctswould obey Lhisdirecrivein lhe rn.o niirru rearner,sraL'er clra.raticpleasto dcsist.At the conc.lusion
"iif.,. "_p.rirnent,
subjectsrvcrcclc.briefed-that is, the cleception*r, o*pfoi".'cl,and they rverereassureclthat the learnerwas in the bestorrrunitt ond had not,in fact,becnsrrrr.jecledto any slrocks'Milgram.rot..i,i.+i.i.nary reconciliarion,As.r..rangedberweenthe srrbjecüa'cr the uictrnr,'andan effor.trvasnracretoreduceany !ensio's thaLaroseas a resr.rltof the experimenc,,(tr,rilgr.anr,
1 9 6 3 ,p . 3 ? a ) .
was this an cthicar.srtrcly?Bau.rrincr(lg6a)qucsriorstlrect'icirr.ity of Milgra*'s rcsclrcrron scvcr.arg,:",r,rar.Irirsr.thc corrrlitiorrsofthe expcrirncntco.ltru'')e thc srrh.j.trti'"*p.,.t,r,inrrst, rrr,tr.cnr<,rrrr.i(lr
Iithics z'19
rcspectatrd noLbe embarrassedor lrunriliated.Second,subjectshave lhe
right to assrrmethat,their secttriiy,self-esleem,and dignity wili be pro'
tected.ln Baumlind's vicrv, Llrccxpcricrrcccotrld wcll act lo aller a sub'
jccl's self-irnage.Thc very lacl that subjeccs believed lhe deception
nrakcsthem foolsand lhus danragesthcir sel[-irnage.irtrrther, they real'
ize what they have donc and'that lhey arc the lype oi person who could
deliberately inflicb considerable pain on a slranger. Whal harm this
knowlpclgcclocsto sclf'perceptionsis unltnown, btrl clearly birepotenlial
is lhere. Debriefing does rrol alleviate Lheseharmful effecLs,since lhe
subjectsknorv thaL they would have shockedthe learner had the curren!
b e e ntu rn ed on. Finally,involvemenLin a study o[this type could reduce
a participant's ability lo trrrsLauthority in tl:c frrlrrre.Milgram (1965)
disagrees,of course,with IJatrmrind'sanalysis, and the inLerestedreader
shorrldrefer !o,his rebuLlal.
Field experimenls, rrsing covcrl observcrs, have become increas'
ingly popular as researchersstruggle to enhance the exlernal validity of
their research rvhile at the,same time sideslepping the conflict between
the ethics requirement lor informed consentand an experimental require-
ment for deception.Piliavin ond Piliavin (1972)provide us with a lypical
example of rhis type of research.In their study the experimenter's con'
lcdcratc, rvalking with the aid of n cane, collapsesitr a subway car. Whab
al)pears to be blood trickles lrom his nrorrilr. lf sonrconeoffers assis'
tance, the confederateallows himselI to be helped to his feet. If no one
intervenes before the train slorvsto a stop, the experimenler, posing as
a l)flssenger,hclps the stooße,and they both leave Lhe train.
Ovcr' 45 percenLof a sirrtrl>lcof randorrrlysclcctedsubjccLsrcgarded
uhis particular study as unetlrical (Wilson & Donnerstein, 19?6). More
general concerns abou! this genre of research have been expressedby
oLher authors (cited in Wilson & Donnerslein, t9?6, and WiesenLhal,
l9?4) and include the follorving:(l) There is no informed consent on the
part of subjcctswho participatc, (2) thcre is no altempi at debriehng, (3)
invasion o[ privacy is an issue if rhc individtrals in field seLbingsdo nob
normally expecl lo be observed,and (4) awareness of the prevalence of
such rescaLchcould lcad ro a t'cactivestrbjec!pool in public situalions.
Another invesligator, A. R. Jensen (1969a), aroused the vigilance
and vilriol o[ thc scientific community with his lhesis that black-white
IQ diiferences.rcflectedgenetic differences.On the basis of a series of
srudics conductedby other tescarchers,he reported that white clrildren
secmed 0obe better at associativeand rote learning. Jensen noted Lhat
the IQ diflerence persisted even when socioeconomics[alus was con'
rrolled and, further, that Lhegap between rvhites and Arnerican Indians
(despite poor schooling)rvas less pronounced than lhal between whites
and blacks. One addiuional picce of supporting.doctrmentalion was the
failule r.rflenreclialedr,rcatiotrl)r'ogran1s.Essentially Jensen'sconclusion
rvls tlvrt. rvlrilc cnvirorrrttcrrtitlfactot'snre rclcvanl, genetic faclors may

8. 280 lirlrics
be lhe principal causalive agenL r,rnrlcr.l)'ingthe allegerl lower ecluca.
tional potenLialoI blacks.
The council for the society fo' rhe psl,chological Study of social
Issues (SPSSD was qtrick ro responcrto this heresy (rg69) iri rvhat rras
been labeled "a dogmatic and enroLional.'fashion (Hebb, l9?0). The
SPSSI verbally spanked Jensen lor eslrotrsinga socialiy clangerousvierv,
Drc.stttttetl.sorncltlgit.intrrl.ct:t'il,ir:isrrrrrl'lris rrr'l.iclg.rrrrrlpplrli<:lvrv;rslr1<l
iLslt:rrrtls,in l'orrritrsl'ilrrLcsr.,vlt:,o{':rn.1.s1,rrrp:rtlr-ylor.lris lrositigl.
'l'lrcir.
principal elhical concernwas as follorvs:
Wc arc cotrccrttctlwith csl.;rlrlislrirrglriglrst;rrrrl:rrtlsof scit:nLilicirrrltrrr.l'
and of scientificrcsponsibilitl'.lnclrr<lcrlirr rhcscstnldar(lsmust be care.
ful intcrprctationof r.cscnrchfin<lings,rvitlrrigor.otrsnttcrrtionto alterna.
tiveaxplarralions.lrt troat'crof scic'rrcc:rretlrcscprincil>lcsnloreimpor.t.rlt
than in thc study of hurna. behnvior'.rvhcrea variety of socialfnctorsr.ay
havglnlgg and far-reachingeffects.whe' researchhns a benringon social
issuesand publicpolicy,tlrescierrtistrlr.st cnrnincthe co'rpcti.g espla.
nationsfcl his findirrgsanrl ruustexcrciscthe greatestcare irr his irrtcr.
prctation(pp. 1039-10,10).
Jensen, ofcourse, algrcs (l969l)) th^t lrc hns. ir fact, nraintained high
standards of scicntific inrlr.riry:rrrrlst:icrrt.ificr.cs;l<lnsirrilityrrrrclsuggcsts
that his cricics have not. l-le rcfers to trrcir rcburial as "sheer prop^go,.,dn.',
Recently this debate resurfaced rrs a^ aftermarh of plrilippe Rrrsh.
ton's (1989) presentation of a paper ro the Anrerican rssociationfor thc
Advancenrentof scierrce.Rrrshton hvllothcsized thar orientals rverc thc
most inlelligenl, rnost sexual[y rcsLrnincd. ancl rhe lcast crinrinal race.
Nexl in the evolrrtionaryhierarclr),wcre rvlrites.follorveclby blacks. Evo.
lutionary lorces rvereassumcrl lo ol)cr.ateirr strcha rva1,thar an exltanrl.
ing brain rvas associatcdwith shrinking genitals. Rtrshtorr.like Jänscn
before him, relicd prinrlrily on irrr nnnl.sisof tlrc r.cscar.clrdono by otlr.
crs. Among lhc rnorc qucstionirlrl<l,l'[ht:sc sccond:r11,sour.ccswils iu.l
anonymously atrLhorccl.qr,tasi-;>ornogr':r1:hicbooli lrublislterl i1 lirrriLcrl
edition in Paris in 1896. Containeclin Ll)crcxI are dcrailerl tlescrir:norrs
of the genitalia and sexual practicesof exoLicarr<l"prirnitive" peoples.r
storm ofconlroversy ctrrrently rages irr the nrcclia,tlre lralls of acaclcnrc.
and uhe scientihc comrnunity ovel. tho battlcgrounds of acaclenricfrce.
dom, social responsibility, tlre scienrific nreriLsof Rrrshton's *,ork. irn<l
lhe effectivenessof ;ieer nnd cthics rcvit:w l)roccssesthat llcrnrit llre ftrrrd.
ing and publication of allegecllyshotltll rcscarch (Zieglcr, lViesenthal.
Wiener, & Weizmann, lgSg).
What can we corclucle fro'r these case s[lrdies? Clcarl1,,irr aclcli.
lion lo the characteristics describcd enr.lier.rve lack unifolrnitv. cliccl)r
in exLreme cases, in our jrrclgrlerrr of rvhn! constitrrres a br.eaclrof
ctltics.Aglccr r r ur t r r n gclr cr ' : r lllr irrcip lcsq :rrrlrc o lr{.lirrctl,b trt *.llcrr rvc
nttcnr pt lo npplv t hc ylr incilr lcst o tlrc co n cre tcin sta rrce .'ecn co lr.l(cl.
aclirnonior,tsclispute,atrclan1'tlccisionis a strbjectivecall' Why should
rhis be so?Becauseqtrestionsolelhics re.semblelhe Goldianknot; they
ar.ciDextricabll,inierrvovenwirh pelsorral,strbglotrp,nn6.,,1911111val-
,,0.,
"ttlrua.s,
and beliefs.They are,in facl, lhe antilhesisof lhe firsr
rrrleof science-objecti'ity.Cuirenuly,conlroversyragesover the ethi'
cality and nror.aliryof aborLion,mercy killing, sterilizationof lhe re'
tnrrlctl.ltrcl l.hc likc' Ilvcrr Ilrt: trtosLcnsttnlt'cviewol lhese debates
i . c * c i t l sI l t c l r c : t v t , v : r l r r c - r ' i r l r l c r r ,t : n t l t . i o t t ; t l l 1 ' l : r t l t : t ll . o t t co f l . h ca r g r r '
nrcntsboth 1:roand cotr.
TII ]] ANIMAL CONTROVIiRSY
Nonhunrananirnnlscornltliscittlllot'tatrlstrtrjccLllollulationsfor nrany
typesoI research.In 1986,for exanrple,2,0I5,222anirnalsof l8 species
ru"re u.o,l bv investigatol'sat Canacliantrniversily,government'and
corrrrr1erciallaboratoriesfor Lhepurposesof research,Lesting,and lench-
ing (Canacliansfor HealthResenrch,1992)'Most (90 percenl)wererats'
nricc,fish.and forvlexpressll'brcdfor rcscarchl)trrposcs'
AmongLhernorevolatiieanclacrinronior.rsdebatesrippinglhrough
thc scicrrfificworlcltotlayis ttttcitrvttlvingnnirnalloversversusanimal
r.csearchers.Yel, concernlbr thc carcitnclttscof arnitrralsin researchis
noc a recer.tLor unique plrcnornenonin rhe scientificcommuniby.As
.ote4 b5,Dcrvsbrrry(f SSOt,the argtrnre.tsoI uheantiviviseclionislsin
rlre Vicior.ian'eriocl'were 'ot ftr.clatrcniallS'differe't from those of
contetul)or.ar.yaninral r.ightsacrivisLs.
'['lrc Arncricansociety for lhe
Pt.eueniionoI cruelty io Anirnalsrvasfotrncledin 1866,coincidenLrvith
rlre pnssageo[ larvsin vnriotrsSlatesbarrningor limiting vivisecLion'
lvlorereccnttl,,the Ar.ritrrnlwclfare Acr, [irst enacled in 1966 and
irure'<lc6b' io.gress irr l1)?(i.t'cgttlirtt:st5c trarlsportaLion,housing,
lttrtl ciltc ol litllorirLory:trlirtlirls'(lrrrrtt"ing:tgctrcics'sttch as the Na-
u io u n l llrstitrr!csof Hcalr'lr,ltitvc lt<loptotlgtritlclilrcsgoverning lhe use
of t'cseirrch atrirnals, rv,hicltttlttsLbc irtlltr-:t'ctlLo lly granl rccipients'
Nlany scientific organizaLirrrrslrilve sirlrilut'lvtaclclcdthe issue o[ ensur-
ing nltllropriate rrseof anirilals iu rcseat'ch.
'l'he
AInct'ican Psychological
,fJro.inriin, lor exan'rple.filst estal:lishccla cornrnittee to adclresslhe
ec5icsof aninral .*pu.ito,1t^tion in 1925. Crr'rent gtridelines,approved
rih l9?9,rspccil'ythe follorvirrg:lhaL Llrc rcsc;tt'chcrcornply with all gov'
er.un.tetltlarvs and regrrliltirlns:that rr scicrrtisLLrilirrcdand experienced
in Lherrseoilaborator:.ya.irnals shotrlclstrpct'viseand be responsiblefor
tl.reirhur'ane Ll.eaLm;11L:!hat rcsearchct's trttrsLnlinirnize discomfort,
illness. ancl pairr |o |he artirnals:thar lraitr,sLt.ess,or lrrivaLiorrmay only
l:e rrscd if alter.naLrvcprocc<lulcsal'e lloL llossiblc antl if tl.rercscarch is
jrrstilic<l1r.1,it"splosl>ct:tiVcv;rltrtr:t.lt;rt.rcst:;tIclicIs slrotrlclcorrsrrlLrvith
,l.,o .o ,un.,i,,ec;t5aL thc 'r'irrcilllcsslrorrltllrc ll.sLcil itr cvcry tucility

9. 2 6 2 U r h i c s
where animals arc used; that ar)r)arcntviolatio.s of rhe principrcs
shouldbe reported!o rhe superuisäran,l, iI trnresolved,shotrldbe re.
ferredto the committee.
. such efforts,howeverlaudabry. havenot sirencedthosecorcernecl
about animal righrs. Most vocifero,.,.orong tlre critics is the Mobil.
izationfor Animals coalitio', an intcrnarionarnetworkof lru'crredsof
animal-protect.ionisLorganizations(l(irrg, rgg4)..l'lr
is gr'rr1rlrasuccusetl
experimentalpsychologistsof sr.rbjectinga.irrals to Jrrchthing. n, ,0.peatcd,.inescapable,llainftrlelectric,hocksl.sIar.vatiorrantltleht<lration;
mutilation;crushinglorceswhichsnrashbonesanrrr'ptur-eorfans;an,r
ll.i:
ond strcssdesigncdto rnakclrcalthy anirrralstx.vchotic(Coile&
Miller' lg84; Ifing, rg84).Nor are all n,.n,,bu*of rhe scierrrificcornrnu.
nity convincedrhar all animal researchmeetsappropriateethicarsran.
dards(Bowd,citedin Carroll,Schncicier& Wesley,tOSS;.
New, nroresLringentr.egulations,l.ecelltl),
-pr.opose<l
b1,the U.S.
Depar'lnrenLof Ag.iculture,ancrrelatecrto tlrc pro.lotio. of trrcps1.clro.
logicalwell-beingof nonhunranprin'ratcsa'cr crogs,have bce. rtceivccl
with somedisnrayby rcsearchcrs(r,nrr<lcr.s,rggg).'r'hc r.crltrir.errrcrrLs,
designcdio enrichrhc c^virorrrnc*tsof captiveani'r:rls,inclrrrlctlrePr.o.visionof regr.rlarexercisein specialpo,.,,o,' the housi'g the arirrrarsin
substantiallylargercagcs,as rvell.s nrodificatiorrsin fcccli.gregirrrcns
to simulateforagingconclitio.s.,^rrro'gthc otrrercolrccf's of arrirrral
researche'sare the lirnitson the .ur'ber.of oper.ationstlrat urirybe Per.formedon a singlcarrinral,the clcgrccor^trthoritygr.arrterr,o ul,.ri,.,n..
ians, and the increasecladurinistrativcload inuol*erri,.,,.,.,eoiingtt.,u
reqtrirerncnts.Irnplcrrrcntnrionof thcscrrurv1lr.o;lo.slrlscotrlrllyrvt.;r sig.
nificant.irnpacton Lhccoslso[ o1>crltingrr lalrornlor..v;rrrtlcotrlrllc:rrlto
ctrrlailmenlof sornerescarchproßrallrs.
]ndeed,sevcralrccell!survcvssuggLrsttlrittjtrst.srrclrir crrrtirilurcur
is
.occurring,ar leasl in trnivcr.siw1r.1."l.,ulogy(lel)aftnrcnts.CalloDrrrrtl
Dddy(1990)notc lhal oncoul of seueirgraclr.ratcclepill.tnrerltstlrnt usc<l
to maintainanimalsno longerdo so.'fhe seconcr,.,.,ortao,r,,.,.,onreirsorrfor
closttre."wasthe prohibitivecoslsof corrrlllinnccrvitlrr:.xistitrgcoclesirrrrl
regulatio.s"(p.a00).Similar.ly,IiencrlicrrrnrlSt.lofl (lggl) cliscor,orledi.
theirsurveyof l3? of "Arnerica'sBcstcollcges"rhat 2l perccrrrol rhc 93
scltoolsthat at orrctinrcttt;tirttlinc<laninrall-aciliticshirilcc,rscrl(o ol)cr..
ateanirnallaborato.ies.Finally,'fhonras
a'cl Blnckrnan(1992).rel)ortlr.rg
on evenlsin rhe united Iüngdonr,poi't to a drarnatic<tccliue1äöPer.
cent)in the nr.rmberof psychologydeparrrnc.tsrvitlra'irnal facilities,a
declinein the numberof anirnalsuserr(?0 percc't).a cleclirrei' anirrar
research(35percenr),and a dcclirreirr tlrc rrtrrnberof 1;r.nrltrntcstrr<lc,rt.s
conducuingarrinralstuclies.'l'his
strbstrrntinlclecr.easein arri,nalrvor.kis
at.lributedto an increasingrelucranccof stuclcrrtsto Particilxrtci. pr.o.
jcctsinvolvinganimalsorrLof conccr.nfrrr.anirrrllrvclfirrc.
NROM PRINCIPLE TO PRAC'fICD
,J'orvlraI c]itcllt do thc mecllanistrrscreatcd by scielrt,ificorganizaLions
ensure t5al researcn fractices are elhical? So.lervSat 'eassuri.g is the
,.o"rt by Coile ancl fuliiler (198a) that none of the allegations of ihe
M o b i l i z a t i o n f o r A n i m a l s g l . o u p w e r c | o u n d t o h e | r t t e - i n a s u r v e y o f 6 0 3
ptrblislredarticles involving rescirt'cltwitlr anirnrrls. [,ess reassurrng ls
Borvcl,sobse^,ation rt.,nto ,ignil,carll 'rol)o'tion of llre ptrblished research
i6 v6 lvirtgllainlul atrirtralcxpcrillctrtaLiotrrvas rlnncccssaryin that thc
r.esearc)rclid noc contribute nerv knowleclge(cited in carroll, schneider
c w o . t . y . i 9 8 5 ) . H o w e v e r , | l r c A r n e r i c a n P s y c l r o l o g i c a l A . s s o c i a t i o n c o m .
LniLteechorged ,uith responsibilitv f<lrar.ljuclicatingcomplainls of
.ethical
,"0frr.".,i."-t'eported o"iy onu case of a iailure tb ensure lhe welfare of
anirnal r.csetrrclrsubjeclsirr a Llrrce.ycarlleriotl tj'om i98l to r983 (Hall
& I{arc.lvlustin, fS83; Mills, lgBa). T}re rnosl fi'cqucnL lype of ethical
conrplaint concerncd atrtholship controversles'
Acla ir,Dtrshenko,and Lirrclsay(1985)have examined the exlenLto
r v l r i c l l L } r c t | c v c l o p r r t e n t o I c t l t i c l r l c o t l e s a n d l ) r a c L i c c s h a s i n f l u e n c e d | h e
conducLof publishcd social llsychologicalrescarch.
'l'licir survcy of 284
empir.icalsiudies indicates thnt ..r*..5ers rarely staLe tSal informed
cousc,.rtrvas obtainecl fronr tltcir strbjectsor ll'raLsubjects were aware
oi ri",.i,.rigSt or.freedorn to rvit6d'arv fronr l5c cxpcrimcnl. Although
| l r e r e s c a r c l r a s a c t u a l l y c o t r c l u c t e d m a y , l r a v e a t t e n d e d t , o | h e s e e | l r i c a l
issues,lhe,failule Lorepot'I thent leaves lhe tltrestionopen'
T l r c p r i n c i p l e o | i n | o r . I r r e c l c o n s e r L i n r p l i e s L h a I r e s e a r c h . p a r t i c i .
r)illrtsr.uus!not bc ntislcd irllotrttllc cxllcrinrcrrL.NcvcrLl'reless,dcccpLion
i.'ir.r;itlla r.rrrclcröcrtairr spccial conditiorrs.Civcn lhc concern abotrt
al.oprion, rhe iinding of nclaiL nn<.1colleagtresthaL exper.imcntsinvolv-
i,.,g,i.."piion are inciensirrgis srrrp'isirrgalLl'rotrgh[here is mo'e.report'
inä of ih. t',ro of rlellrieii'g proccdtrres. Barrrnrincl (1985) sinlilarlv
..u'por,.rhac rhe ethical stanci-arclsimplr'rnrerrLedby Lhe American Psych-
o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a | i o n i n l g ? 3 l r a v c n o i c l e c r e a s e d L h e i n c : d e n c e o r m a g n i .
ttrrlc of thc trsc of tlcccptiorr irl social psychological research and she
stlggestseprplol'lnenI oI irItclnative resezrrclr stla tc gies'
A c l a i r a r r c l a s s o c i a t , e s a l s o l r i g h l i g h L a n u m b e r . o f r r r e t h o d o l o g i c a l
pr.oblenrscrciltc(l bf str.ingcnt uppli.ntin..,of crrrr.cnIcthical standards.
. F o r e x a , n p l e , i r a p p e a r s t l r a L w l r e n c o l r d , i t i o r . r s o ( . i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t a r e
irr,stitutcd, lerver subjecls aßl'ec to par'licipate' Those who d.o.agreecon'
stiLrrtea biased .on,pto"flie clcbriefing iroccdttre required in cases of
c l e c e p L i o n n r a ) , c o n t a m i n a ! c s u b s c q t t e n I r e s t t l t s o b t a i n e d r v i t l r l n i e r s u b .
,jcc[sbccatrsct'cscarchl)arLicil)llntsswol'n to sccl'ecYhave been fotrnd üo
clisclosethc uature of the cxpclinlcnt LooLltcrs'
ir'lairrraining,n ofp,up'intc balancc belrvcen the bcnefits of research
Irntl thc costs to p,rrtiaipr,,,r*,whilc i't tl)c sirillc'litne etrsttring r11elhod'

10. ologicalpt r |it y,r vill t ; r x t lt c cr cir tivitl irrrtlin g u ru it-vp l'tlrc r.csc.rclrcrfo rsonte tinre lo conrc.
Cost - Bcr r cf it I t lLio
.
By anr l I nr gc t lr c lcg: r l pr nlt.ssirrrr.,,.,.1 .;.lt.slh r,p r.irrt:ip lcth :rt it islrcLLcrt0 lcL l{x) grrilr'1'g'r'r'trcrrr:rrrro r:'rrvicL(,t)crnll(rccr'rt1lcr.s,rr.'r'lrccos.ts(darnagesor harnr) uttcn(llnl or'rr.:r'l'or)couscon'icriorrsnr.eclccr,t,cl
lo be gl'eatet'tltitrt tlrt'bcrtefits ol'trtiLiz-irrgrrror.estrirrgcut 1lr.'ccclur.eslhaL would ensure a higher convicti<lrrr:rtc,-oftlre grrilt-r.btrtr'oulrr arso
encr.p somo innocerlt r)efsons.sirrrilrrr'|.t..r'.rr1. isstrcsirr scicrrcercflcclvariou.srnixcs of c()sts;rn(l llcnc{it.s.S,rnr<,rrrrlllt:irs:rrrt:rrrrllrvcrrrlirrrgcr.
ous subjecrswould rrot rle,ptrrstrerr(,ric(.r)ttrr*t rhc llossirrregain to soci.
ety is gr eat .M ilgr ar r r ' s( l96l) st urll,:ris,r,,,rscirr llo irrt.I)iclit:rlcr.trrst.a poterrtial social clangcr tlr;rt ought.tp q;1115sls sorl)c copccrni)Vr5n!
aborrt the cost-benefit'atio of briii. strr<r1.r,Alrhotrgh soure rrerefits oftrnderstanding the opc'irtion of thc llrrrirr'irr.corrvious.rvrrat aborrt thcdangcrs oI a littlc l<norvrcrrg.,.s scus.[i.ualizccl b1,Nlichael crichto' r.the book rlrc'fcruinor.Mait? Irngllnrrtiugtrcviccsto'clgl so'.rcorc.seuofhcar is surcly ltcncljcirrl.llut rvirlt it.ihe npptiarrcc trltirlarclr. losrcr.s
even more serious dererioration in thc 'e^,oris s.vste'r?Lruestigatio.s of
llt--ll:ttir"l
and psychorogicaleflects of star.vrrriorrarc rnc,rirorious,
tmportant,and useful,lltrt horvr'uclr srrätrlcrorc tr),ro r>crsrirdea vol.
unteer to scaywiLh such a str.rdl'afterni.e n.,onth.rulienthe strrlject
shorvsan inclinationto cllo;rout (ltc..cs.llrozek.Hcnsclrc.l.ilickclscn&Taylor,1950)?Horvdoesone bnlarrcctlre coststo nronke.r.sagairrsrtlrc
benefitsderivedfronr the or.alSabin *.n.cinefor polio?
.
Increasi'gly,tlrc 'cecrsr.rfsocietl.i'f'lrrc.ccthe rrn(trr.e,oI the rltrcs.
tio.s altackedby scicnce.Dachsocic'tj'hnsn'eecl to rrercrrdit.serf.sos.e
have rcsearclron thu <rc'cro1lr.e.t,rf rrn,."rrcntll_r.(rrrorccfficic,rr,),..",,.
;lotrryand cvcr tllol'cvirtrlctrtstfilin.ol'llrrctcr.il.fiirchsocictr.hls ir
need to feed itsclf, so rvg h;11,cresctrrclru,, ,,,r,1.rr.,,r-n,rnr--nl.,,i,r"*,
fros!-resistantvarioticsof rvrreirtgoi'g lrnrrtr.irr.rr*rrcrrvith trrcrrc*crop.
nrcuüof saferand nro'ecffcctivcp'lltrlrrtioncortrol tcclrrri<1rrcs,irrcl.<1.
ing abortion.societ.vhasa rreedfoi.,irorcencrg'.soresear.clrersstr.ivero
locateand discoverherv.59s11.ss5of errcrg.l.nnit tn rr.scexisting,n,,r.0,
more efficie'[ly,even thotrghthis nrar.icsult ir.il sllills,ii.,rlurl.,",.
formsof pollutionthat conscr.vatiorristsilcplor".
Are Lhedisadvan[agcs(c<.rsts)ol.srrcliresenrchorrtrvciglrcrlllr. rlrc
a.dvanlages-theg'eater gooclfor thc grcater 'umbcr? calculatio' of
the total cost-benefitratio for any of thc llrccctrirrgis a corrrplex.sulljcc.
tive,.a'd i'conrpleteprocess-r'leverrrcfi.iti'e, o'rJ-srrggcsti*o-a^crthe
resultnntrario figurc nra-r,rvcll <liffcrfr.or.one cnlcrrlatorro a.otlrcr.
" ' l ' l t r . : r u t h r , r s : u r . i r t r l r . l r r , . r lt r r l ) r . l . . l , , r r l i i r r "l , , r l t r . r . , r r r r r l r l t t . r 1 . t , r t l l r . : r r r : r l r . . r _r r l
tlris i.s.srrl
Conselsrrs of jrrdgmenLs ils to t[e cthicalitl'of 1 partictrlnt' lriecc of
rcscarclris lurclerstandabll'hald to achievc.
SCIENCtr,GOVDRNMENT,AND LAW
As parficiprrnls in onc ol socicty's IttcrsIlttlrvct'ftrl,llrcstigious instiLu'
tiorr5.as crcator.sof trrrllr :rutl ltractiliotret'sof objectivity, scienLificdis'
ciplcs rrlder.stantlably a1t1lt'oltriittc{llrc dcvcl(}l)lnc11t,application, and
enforcenrentoI cthical sLandarclsin research to thernselves'Preferring
to regulate their disciplines intcrnally, scientisLsassumed responsibility
lor tlrc maintenancc of hight sLanclar<lsand handled contraventions of
cthical codesin.house. Cut'renLlrends suggesl that these functions may
hc usurpcd by governmelrLittltl thc courts.
CorrfrontcclrviLh csscntillly trnrcsolvnlllcdisputcs, socinl scientisLs
äppear to be stepping smattl), along in thc footplints of the physicians
as'they search for clarificafion, nol of the nror;rlor ethical bases of their
r.esearch,btrt of its lcgal ranrifications antl possible liability threals
(Na sh , l9?5: Silver.rnan,1975).Increasingconstrmersophisticalionre-
garcling tlre limiCs of scicntific urcthotls antl [hc rclaLivity of Lhe truth
p.oduct, combined rvith a clearer ariictrlation and enrphasis on human
righ,., has generated a less gullible, less deferent, less lolerant public.
So, rhcrc is greatcr readittessto bring L[e scicntisl Lo task (through Iiti'
gation) fo| infringemetrt of civil liberties, for danlages resulting from
negligenceand the like.-
f'1. escalating cosLsof scieltific researclt. lruch of it' funded from
taxpayer coffers,legitimizc govel'tttnenL'sdetlatr<l for nrore public accounl'
abilitv rvhile tl.retcnraclcs of legal and goverrrtnenLalsystems scoopup
nrore and nrore of C[e erhicrtl isstrcs[ct'eLofolc rcsiding in the private
rlornnil (invasiop of ;trivnct':llrcach ol confidenliality; inforrnation accessi
aninral care).'l'hc crosiou ol'prrbliccotrlt<lerrccirl scientific idcals, as well
as public artitudes of skepticisnror cynicistrl äs a.consequenceoI expo'
sulr Loscience'sseamy siclc-its clirty laundry-acceleraies these trends.
Drroneous scientific hntliDgs stcrnrning florn chance factors are to
be expected;those resulting lrom Lhc practice of poor science(based on
ignorance of proper meilroclology)may be forgiven' More heinous, how'
iur, nru the sini of miscon<lucl(curting co.lcrs and misrepresenLation)
and fraud (fabricaling rcsttlLswirh rlre intenl to deccive)'
Trtrsl in lhe honestl' 0f reseatch colleagrresremains a cornerslone
of science.
'l'o
be rricked b1,capriciouschance is frusiraling enough; to be
tricked by a sneaky collengtrcis intolerablc'
Rccently, cuidence has srrrfacedsuggesting that a famous.British
ps1'chologist,Sir Cyril BtrrL, fallricatetl data linking iQ to heredity
iEi,."n.fl lg?9; I(anrin, l98l). Burt, on wSosc work Jensen relied heav'
ilrj, r:stirrratctltlrirt irrtclliglrrcc lcvt':l rv:rs tlcierrlined 80 percent by
lrcrc<litvrrtrdortll'20 llct'ct:rrtl)'('llvil'(rtlllrollL'

11. Ethics
The evidenceof fraud is indicated on two counts. First, Burt re-
ported data from sourcesthat now appear to be imaginary or nonexis-
tent-nonexistent thesesand researchreports.Second,Burt reported
identicalcorrelationsfor supposedlydifferentpiecesof research.since
identical results rarely arise from different samples, it would appear
that Burt didn't bother calculating new correlation coefficientson the
basisof new data but merelyusedcorrelationscomputedon earlierdaca.
Currently, the debate rages hot and heavy as to whether the evi-
denceproveslraud or is merely an indication of sloppinessand aging on
Burt's part. Regardlessof the debate'seventual outcome,it raises at
least two important issuesfor us. In the first place,the intensity of the
debate provides a current example of how sensitive scientists are to
chargesof fraud against one of their own number, of how such charges
threaten the integrity of science.In the secondplace,this debatealso
providesan exampleof how scientists,in protectingthemselvesagainst
chance,also defend themselvesagainst fraud. You will recall lhat the
best way to increaseconfidencethat your firndingsare reliable is to use
large samplesand to publishyour proceduresand hndings so that oth-
erscan checkyour results.
Fortunately, the hypothesis that intelligence has a large genetic
componentdoesnot rest on Burt's work alone.A variety of studies by
other investigatorsalso support the hypothesisthat IQ and inheritance
are signifrcantly related (Rimland & Munsinger, lg77). Had such inde-
pendently anived-at data not b'eenavailable,the cument debate would
be evenmoreacrimonious.
A.lthoughwe would like to believe that fraud and data "diddling,'
are rare, Dr. JeromeJacobsteinsuspectsthat as much as 25 percentof
publishedwork may be basedon fudgeddata (citedin Stewart, l9g9);
Walter Stewart,the self-proclaimedvigilante of the scienceworld, reports
receiptof about100allegationsof misconducta year (Stewart,1989);an
Australian researcher "estimates that for every formal accusation of
fraud, there are up to 1000caseslhat go undiscoveredor are ignored,
(Birenbaum,1992,p. 8).
Although Nobel Laureate John Polanyi (198g)placeshis conhdence
in the peerreview processas science'squality control mechanism,Stew-
art remains unconyincedof the effectivenessof peer adjudication in pro-
tecting sciencefrom the offensesof misconductand fraud. As a casein
point, he cites John Darsee's work published in the prestigious Nera
England Journal ol Medicine.A genealogywas presentedin the paper
in which a l7-year-old was listed as having four children, one an 8-year-
old daughterlStewart'spainstakinginvestigationof the work of Darsee
and colleaguesrevealedthat 35 of Darsee's4Z co-authorshad engaged
in unacceptablescientificpractices.Or, considerthe caseof the American
historian Jayme Aaron skolow who plagiarizedassortedbooks,articles,
and theseson Buropeanand Americanhistory(Birenbaum,l9g2).
Ethics 287
Similar examplescanbefoundin the Coseöookon Ethical Principles
of Psychologists(American PsychologicalAssociat'ion,198?).Two of the
many caseswhich, upon investigation, revealed evidenceof unethical
behavior, are presentedbelow.In each instance, the Ethics Committee
ruled in favor of the complainant,and the maximum sanction of expul-
sion from the Associationwas imposed.
Severalfaculty membersat a foreigrruniversityrevieweda colleague's
publicationsin connectionwith his promotionreview,and foundthat a
numberof the papershehadpublishedin their nativelanguageappeared
to benearlyverbatimplagiarismsof articlesandbookchapterspublished
elsewherein English.(p.?)
The chair of a university'sponsoredresearchcommitteebecamesuspi-
ciousof a lengthyvita presentedby a psychologistin connectionwith her
applicationfor a sabbaticaltravel gtant. Upon investigation,the chair
foundthat morethan halfof the nearly80 articleslistedin the vita had
neverbeenpublishedandhleda complaintagainstthe psychologistwith
the EthicsCommittee.(p.8)
Material presentedin this chapter not only underscoresthe need
for ethical standards, but also reveals great variability in adherence
and"/oreffectivenessof enforcemeni.Although dismissalfrom one'scolle'
gial network (as representedby learnedsocietyaffrliation) is unpleasant
and may have deleteriouseffectsof somemagnitude on career prospects,
the justice system brandishes sigrrilicantly more potenl sanctions. In
what is perhapsthe first caseof criminal chargesspringing from the fal-
sification of researchresults,psychologistStephen Breuning (who falsi-
hed medicalresearchinvolving the effectsofbehavioral-conlrol drugs on
the severely retarded) pleadedguilty to two counts of fraud. This plea
carries a maximum penalty of l0 years in prison and $20,000 in hnes
(Bales, 1988). Government agenciesare also biting off a chunk of the
action with the recent creationof two officeslo prevent and invesLigate
scientific fraud.and misconduct(Adler, 1989).So,increasingly,the polic-
ing of scientific researchleaks out of the hands of the scientists to be
suckedup by governmentand the legalsystem.
SUMMARY
What is consideredto be ethical behaviorvaries from culture to culture
and from lime lo time, as doescompliancewith whalever codesare in
vogue.Although a given group may be able to agreeon a set of ethical
principles, it is much more diffrcult boagreeon whether a given princi'
ple has been breachedin a particular case. Increasingly, government
regulations and formal legal criteria and processesare supplementing
the self-imposedstandards of conduct and enforcementprocedures
adoptedby scientists.

12. rußMPLE
Ethics 289
the regular editor of the journal, Dr. Ralph Nicholls, claims that the
paper was subjectedto peerreview and a favorableevaluation received.
However,he refusesto providea copyof the assessment(evenwith iden-
tifying information deleted) to the journal's editorial advisory board.
Does this article meet the criteria for scienti-ficpublication?Again, we
must, in agreementwith Zimmerman (1993),concludeno. It does not
constitute a significant contribution to rhe discipline;it is not based on
sound methodologicalor conceptualfoundations;it doesnot use careful
and appropriatedata analysisproceduresto supportconclusions.
Following publication, letters expressingreactions to the Freeman
article descendedon the author, the journal editor (Dr. Nicholls), mem.
bers of the editorial advisory board, and the editor-in.chief of rhe
National ResearchCouncil (NRC) Journals (8. P. Dancik). As a conse.
quenceof detailedcritical analysisand widespreaddisapprobation, rhe
editor-in-chief,Bruce Dancik, published the following retraction: '"This
article doesnot comprisescienceand has no place in a scientific jour-
nal. The National ResearchCouncil ResearchJournals and the Editor
of the Canadian Journal of Physicsregret that this article was pub-
lished." Still unexplainedare the proceduralirregularities surrounding
the publication. Nor was there assurancethat steps would be imple-
mented to reducefurther harm (e.g.,citation of the article as if it were
a scholarly pieceof research)or to ensurethat such an embarrassment
would not be repeated.Hence,protestssuch as the following resolution
passedby the RoyalSocietyof Canadacontinuedunabated.
The Royal Societyof Canada,which is strongly committed to the
advancementof women in scholarship,hereby expressesits cen-
sure of the Canadian Journal of Phtsics.In publishing the article
by GordonR. Freeman,"Kinetics of nonhomogeneousprocessesin
human society:Unethical behaviour and societalchaos,"(Canadian
Journal of Physics,6S:794-?98 (1990)),it displayed a lapse of
editorial and scientilic responsibility.The article is devoid of sci-
entific content and the title is inappropriate and misleading. The
Canedian Journal of Physicsfailed to publish a timely and ade-
quate retraction. The Royal Societyof Canada deplores both the
insult to working mothers and the denigration of their children
implicit in the publishedarticle.
Subsequent responsesof NRC constituted more fulsome efforts to
redressthe damage-i.e., publicationof a supplementissue to CJP con-
taining commentarysolicitedfrom the socialsciencecommunity; brga-
nization of a symposium on ethical issuesassociatedwith publication
practices;greater efforts to ensurerepresentationof women in editorial
posts;initiation of a number of formal publication policies;and rerriew
of cunent proceduresinvolved in the publication processfor the NRC
ResearchJournals.
The issue here is not whether ProfessorFreeman'sviews are accu-
rate, nor is there any quanel with his right to share his perceptions.It
is his abuse of his editorial and professionalprivilegesand obligations
that consiitutesethicalcontravention.Personalbias and prejudice must
not be paradedunder the guiseof legitimatesocialscienceresearch.
THE FREE,IAN AFFAIR
Arr article, published in 1990in the Canadi.anJournal o/Päysics (CJP),
authoredby Dr. Gordon Freemanentitled,'Xinetics of Nonhomogeneous
Processesin Human Society:Unethical Behaviourand SocietalChaos,"
has arousedconsiderableconsternationin the sciencecommunity (e.g.,
Crease,1992;Lees,cited in Freeman,1991;Stark'Adamac,1993;Zim'
merman, 1993)and elsewhere(Strauss,1991;Wolfe, 1991,1992).In his
provocative treatise, Dr. Freeman, a university chemistry professor,
arguesthat mothers who participate in the paid labor forceare respon-
sible for most socialills-from murder, mayhem,and corrupt politics to
drug taking and student cheating. The methodologyemployed in this
purportedly sociologicalstudy is essentiallyunsystematiccasualobser-
vation (seeChapter l). Guinan (1992),noting that Freeman has failed
to provide precisedata in support of this thesis,comments,
The author explains that the study involves "about 1,300 stu-
dents" and "people outside the university'' and 2,500 "student
controls." The methods for determining sample size, enrolling
subjects,or collecting and analyzing data are not described.No
data are given on either the number of subjectswith motherswho
did or did not work or the number of subjects who cheated on
exams. It is impossible to determine whether data was [sic] col-
lected systematically or whether the analysis is sound, since no
data or analysis are presented.Significantly,no criteria are given
for determining cheatersand noncheaters.(p. 113)
Ironically, given that Freeman is concernedabout the ubiquitous-
nessof unethical behavior among university students,there appearsto
be a seriousbreach of ethics in his own work. Objectingto the artificial-
ity of experimentsand surveys,Freemanreports that he collectedinfor-
mation unobtrusively. This raisesthe questionof whether Dr. Freeman
informed his subjectsthat they were in fact participating in a research
study.
Despite the lack of supporting data or citation of corroborating
research in the social scienceliterature, Dr. Freeman proposesdra'
matic social actions based on the presumedconfirmation of his thesis.
For example,he advocatessubstantial ta-xcredits for families in which
one parent doesnot work outside the home, a reduction in tax credits
for day care expensesin the caseof dual-careerfamilies, and discour'
agementof the creation of on-siteday care centersby businesses.
How did this article which is not physics,indeed,not science,come
to appear in CJP? Dr. Freeman was the guest editor for this particular
issue of the journal thab was to contain the proceedingsof the hrst
International Conferenceon Kinetics of NonhomogeneousProcesses.
Was the Freeman paper presentedat the conference?No, it was not.
Did this work pass the scrutiny of äny ethics review committee?
Apparently not. Had the CJP editorial advisory board been consulted
concerningpublication of this confoversial article?No, again, although

13. llJo lith ics
REVTBWQUiZ
'frue
or False?
l. Intcrcst in cthicnl isstrcsvis.i.vis scicnr:olt:rs rr';rrrcrlirr rccerrt tintrs.
2.
'l'lrcrc
is n rcrnrrrk;rblc)ronurgurrt:it1'orunilirrrrrily rrnss.r'rrltrrrrrlllirr t:l"lri-
cal standards.
3. A kcy rcnson for designirrgntrd cncottr:tgirrg;rtlolrtion<rf:t cotlc of ctlrics is
to inflict or impose our currcnt sensc of values on our colleagues.
4. As a research assistant in a large research project, PsychomeLristT. Y. is
cmployed by lhe inner.city elementaly school systurn to a<lministcr intclli.
gence tests to pupils rvho arc not pcrforntinß aL atr ircccptnblc lcvcl.'l'. Y.
, rcports bacrlo each tesledistudenl's teaclrer the follorving informatiort: the
child's IQ score, items on rvhich the child did poorly, iterns or subtesls cotn.
pleted at a satisfactory level, and thc child's dcrrteanor in thc tcst sitrra.
tion. T. Y.'s behavior is unethical.
5.
'l'he
approval ofa research projcct h1'rtrrctlrics rt'r'icrvcotuntittc(!(locs rtot
absolve Ihe rescarcher from soliciting othcl in<lcpcntlcrrtnsscssrucntsof
lhc c[hical issues involve<I.
( i . I n t h e M i l g r a m ( 1 9 6 3 ) s t u d y i n v o l v i r t g : t r l n t i r r i s t r n t i o r to f s l r o c k s b 1 ' ; r
"Lcncht:r" strbjccr to ;r "lcitrrrcr" stoogL'. tltc srrbjcc[ rlt'hricfrng procetlttrc
rvorrldcffcctivell'rrllcvintc nrry Prrlt:rrl.i:rllyh:rrrufirl cffccls rcsrrlting flrrr;r
participation in the rcsearch.
i. lnfornred conscnt is generally obtairred frionrstrbjcctst)irrticiprrtinßin ficld
cxpcri nrcnts.
B, Dxcept in extrcme calscs,,elack trnifonrrit.r'ofjrrdgrrrcrrtns to shctlrcr flr'l
individunl sttrdy contains a brcnclt trI ctlrics
9. Most arrimals used in resenrclrarr.:esprcssll'llrcrl for this ptrrllosc.
t0. Concern abou! aninral rights arrd tlrcir rlrrogltiorr irr rcscirlclr is n lcln.
tively rrerv phcnonrerron.
t l. One survey has revaaledlltat ono ottt of scvetrgratlrtnte ;ls.vchologl'<lcpnrt'
nrcnts that uscd to maintoin aninrnl f:rcilitir:s lravc ahitnrlortt'tlnrtirrul
rvork.
12. A decline in the ntrmbcr of facultl' ;rnrl sttr<lcn(scrrgngcrlirr ;trtirtt:rlrvork
has.been observedin rhe Unitcd l(ingdonr.
13, Experimcnts involving <ieccptionipPcxr to be tlccl'ensitrg.
14. When conditior.lsof infornrcd corrscrrt lrrc ins(i[trtcd, fcrtcr in<livirluals
agree to participate in lhe resenrch.
15. Sir Cyril Burt apparenlly cited da!a frorn sotrrcesthnt do noI cxisl.
l{i. One rcscarclrcr, Dr. Jcronrc Jacobslcin. cstint:rtcstltnt rrs rrrttclrts 7i pcr.
ccnI of published rvork may bc ba.scrlorr futlgcd <lnta.
17. Although t.he Freeman study meeqs the cliterin for scicntilic ptrblication.
given its sociologicalorientat.iorr,it rvirs itrll>llrollriatelr'prrhlishe<lin thc
Conodian Journol o/ Plr.v.sic.s.