Deception of Subjects in Neuroscience: An Ethical Analysis

Miller, Franklin G.; Kaptchuk, Ted J.

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1493-08.2008

Cited by 32 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tiroe I M(SD) Nofe: "Time I", post-consent; "Time 2", post-debrief; "Time 1" and "Time 2" represent average scores on each scale after collapsing across groups, to promote the autonomy of research participants by giving them a fair opportunity to withdraw from a study knowing that deception will be involved [14]. Another measure to promote autonomy in deceptive research is to provide the participants the opportunity to withdraw their data after having learned the true nature ofthe study during the debriefing process [14].…”

Section: Poms Scilementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Placebos have the potential to enhance the therapeutic outcome of medical interventions and are a source of important variability to be considered in clinical trials designed to evaluate treatment efficacy [14]. However, the methodology by which placebo effects are investigated has raised some ethical concerns [5,10,14,151.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the methodology by which placebo effects are investigated has raised some ethical concerns [5,10,14,151. Because placebo analgesia is strongly influenced by the recipient's expectations [16][17][18], clinical and experimental studies typically rely on the use ofdeception regarding the purpose ofthe research and/or the nature of the treatment being administered, thereby leading the participants to believe that they are receiving a physically active treatment when in fact they are receiving a placebo [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because placebo analgesia is strongly influenced by the recipient's expectations [16][17][18], clinical and experimental studies typically rely on the use ofdeception regarding the purpose ofthe research and/or the nature of the treatment being administered, thereby leading the participants to believe that they are receiving a physically active treatment when in fact they are receiving a placebo [14]. This use ofdeception is oftenjustified on the grounds that full disclosure about the purpose of the research or the experimental procedures may influence the participants' responses and thus jeopardize scientific knowledge [14]. As such, deception is often seen as a necessary means of promoting the internal and external validities of placebo research [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They call this form of consent "authorized deception", since the participants are alerted to the presence of deception in the research and thus knowingly permit its use if they decide to participate [15]. Additionally, the participants may be offered the opportunity to withdraw their data after they have been informed about the true nature of the study as a means of restoring participant autonomy [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Inclusion of authorized deception in the informed consent process does not affect the magnitude of the placebo effect for experimentally induced pain

Martínez-Cutillas¹,

Katz²

2010

Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ethics of placebo research have been of paramount concern since the discovery of the phenomenon. To address these ethical concerns, Miller and colleagues (PLoS Med 2005 Sep;2(9):e262, 0853-0859) propose an altemate approach to placebo research, called "authorized deception", in which participants are alerted of the use of deception in the research prior to study enrollment and thus knowingly permit its use if they decide to participate. The present study sought to investigate the authorized deception methodology in experimentally induced placebo analgesia. The participants were randomly assigned to an authorized deception or non-authorized deception group. A commonly used protocol was employed wherein heat pain stimulation was surreptitiously lowered following the application of a placebo cream during a series of conditioning trials and the magnitude of the placebo effect was subsequently assessed in test trials for which the stimulus intensity was the same for both the placebo and control creams. Authorized deception did not have any negative impact on the magnitude ofthe placebo effect, recruitment and retention of participants, nor did it result in any significant psychological harm. The majority of participants who received this form of consent preferred it to the traditional approach in which the participants are not alerted to the presence of deception. These findings suggest that the use of authorized deception is a viable and ethically preferable alternative consent process for laboratory-based studies on placebo analgesia. Further studies are needed to examine the effect of authorized deception in clinical trials and other placebo research within a clinical setting.

show abstract

Section: Poms Scilementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Inclusion of authorized deception in the informed consent process does not affect the magnitude of the placebo effect for experimentally induced pain

Martínez-Cutillas¹,

Katz²

2010

Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effects of Expectation on Placebo-Induced Dopamine Release in Parkinson Disease

Lidstone

Schulzer²,

Dinelle³

et al. 2010

Arch Gen Psychiatry

278

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Tangled Knots of Neuroscientific Experimentation

Frisch

2021

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experimental method has promoted the popularity of neuroscientific research on the human mind. In this interdisciplinary enterprise, the experimental method, with its roots in natural science and experimental psychology, is often uncritically accepted as the royal road to investigate the human mind not only by neuroscientists, but by many philosophers as well, especially those inclined to some form of naturalism. It is rarely disputed that experiments reveal actual states of nature (here: of mind and/or brain). Experimental results are used to picture the human person or subject as an illusionary construct resulting from neuronal interactions. The present paper sketches some of the limitations of neuroscientific experiments in order to demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience is far from relying on firm methodological grounds. Numerous issues still have to be solved, some of which date back to the early days of modern science. At least, to make experiments work, many theoretical presuppositions have to be accepted and decisions of relevance have to be made in the scientific process. This implies that all scientific endeavor is constituted by persons making free decisions for good reasons, despite all reductionist claims to the contrary. The fact that we as scientists have to distinguish relevant from irrelevant aspects of experimental procedures is also crucial for dealing with the current replicability crisis in the life sciences including neuroscience.

show abstract

Deception of Subjects in Neuroscience: An Ethical Analysis

Cited by 32 publications

References 11 publications

Inclusion of authorized deception in the informed consent process does not affect the magnitude of the placebo effect for experimentally induced pain

Inclusion of authorized deception in the informed consent process does not affect the magnitude of the placebo effect for experimentally induced pain

Effects of Expectation on Placebo-Induced Dopamine Release in Parkinson Disease

The Tangled Knots of Neuroscientific Experimentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About