When is deception in research ethical?

Athanassoulis, Nafsika; Wilson, James

doi:10.1258/ce.2008.008047

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When advised of this research, several practices expressed anger that they had been included in research without their knowledge. (from personal conversation with Dr. Lagu, permission granted to use) Furthermore, the IRB instructed the authors to destroy identifying information prior to publication so that individual clinics in violation of the ADA could not be identified [3-5]. After publication, the state Attorney General’s office called Dr. Lagu, asking for identifying information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journalists, district attorneys and researchers: why IRBs should get in the middle

Chodos

Lee

2015

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFederal regulations in the United States have shaped Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to focus on protecting individual human subjects. Health services research studies focusing on healthcare institutions such as hospitals or clinics do not have individual human subjects. Since U.S. federal regulations are silent on what type of review, if any, these studies require, different IRBs may approach similar studies differently, resulting in undesirable variation in the review of studies focusing on healthcare institutions. Further, although these studies do not focus on individual human subjects, they may pose risks to participating institutions, as well as individuals who work at those institutions, if identifying information becomes public.DiscussionUsing two recent health services research studies conducted in the U.S. as examples, we discuss variations in the level of IRB oversight for studies focusing on institutions rather than individual human subjects. We highlight how lack of IRB guidance poses challenges for researchers who wish to both protect their subjects and work appropriately with the public, journalists or the legal system in the U.S. Competing interests include the public’s interest in transparency, the researcher’s interest in their science, and the research participants’ interests in confidentiality. Potential solutions that may help guide health services researchers to balance these competing interests include: 1) creating consensus guidelines and standard practices that address confidentiality risk to healthcare institutions and their employees; and 2) expanding the IRB role to conduct a streamlined review of health services research studies focusing on healthcare institutions to balance the competing interest of stakeholders on a case-by-case basis.SummaryFor health services research studies focusing on healthcare institutions, we outline the competing interests of researchers, healthcare institutions and the public. We propose solutions to decrease undesirable variations in the review of these studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journalists, district attorneys and researchers: why IRBs should get in the middle

Chodos

Lee

2015

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ethics committees state they cannot justify deceiving people for the interest of research. They stress on the fact that generating new knowledge should never override the participants' welfare (Athanassoulis and Wilson, 2009). They regard deception a limitation to the participants control over psychological damage or distress they may be exposed to.…”

Section: Deception From Ethics Committees Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They insist that "given the fact that a piece of research involves deception does not in and of itself make it morally problematic" (Athanassoulis and Wilson, 2009) but rather the rationale behind withholding information from the person being deceived. And phishing research, by nature, 'must' include some degree of deception, as it measures deception primarily.…”

Section: Deception From Phishing Researchers' Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conducting comparative studies that measure participants' opinion about deception, they showed that 84% to 95% of the participants enjoyed deceptive studies more than non-deceptive ones (Athanassoulis and Wilson, 2009). They were also educated more in deceptive studies especially via the debriefing sessions.…”

Section: Deception From Phishing Researchers' Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

To deceive or not to deceive! Legal implications of phishing covert research

El-Din

Sugiura

2013

IJIPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst studying mobile users' susceptibility to phishing attacks, we found ourselves subject to regulations concerning the use of deception in research. We argue that such regulations are misapplied in a way that hinders the progress of security research. Our argument analyses the existing framework and the ethical principles of conducting phishing research in light of these regulations. Building on this analysis and reflecting on real world experience; we present our view of good practice and suggest guidance on how to prepare legally compliant proposals to concerned ethics committees.

show abstract

“…The model for the characterization of risk roles presented in Section is an improvement of a previous model that has been discussed and tried out in practical applications …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Perform an Ethical Risk Analysis (eRA)

Hansson¹

2018

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical analysis is often needed in the preparation of policy decisions on risk. A three-step method is proposed for performing an ethical risk analysis (eRA). In the first step, the people concerned are identified and categorized in terms of the distinct but compatible roles of being risk-exposed, a beneficiary, or a decisionmaker. In the second step, a more detailed classification of roles and role combinations is performed, and ethically problematic role combinations are identified. In the third step, further ethical deliberation takes place, with an emphasis on individual risk-benefit weighing, distributional analysis, rights analysis, and power analysis. Ethical issues pertaining to subsidiary risk roles, such as those of experts and journalists, are also treated in this phase. An eRA should supplement, not replace, a traditional risk analysis that puts emphasis on the probabilities and severities of undesirable events but does not cover ethical issues such as agency, interpersonal relationships, and justice.

show abstract

When is deception in research ethical?

Cited by 24 publications

References 4 publications

Journalists, district attorneys and researchers: why IRBs should get in the middle

Journalists, district attorneys and researchers: why IRBs should get in the middle

To deceive or not to deceive! Legal implications of phishing covert research

How to Perform an Ethical Risk Analysis (eRA)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About