Vessels 20on 20Research 20 20Ethics 20 20Walden 20Expanded by ga3Heb

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 79

									The Continual Cycle of Science
                  Research question
                  about the real world



  Theory                                 Research
                                         hypothesis




 Interpretation                             Data
                                          gathering

                       Statistical
                       analyses
 Research Methods in Psychology
■ The goals of psychology are to describe,
  explain, predict, change, prevent, increase,
  decrease, modify, shape, extinguish, cause,
  and control behavior.
■ These goals are accomplished by using the
  scientific method, which is systematic and
  empirical . . . [that is] . . . based on observable
  and measurable events.
  Extracted from Prentice-Hall Ch. 1 PP Slide Show for Davis & Palladino Text, Psychology, 4th
  Edition. Dr. Vessels’ Additions are shown in brackets.
Case Studies & Naturalistic Observation
        A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single
        person or event.
        Although the findings of a case study may apply
        only to the person who was studied, they may
        provide direction for further study using other
        methods.
        To study behavior in real-life settings,
        psychologists often use naturalistic observation.
        This technique also may suggest research
        projects using more controlled approaches.
        In using naturalistic observation, the onlooker
        must be unobtrusive and avoid influencing the
        behavior being studied.
Extracted from Prentice-Hall Ch. 1 PP Slide Show for Davis & Palladino Text, Psychology, 4th Edition. Vessels’ additions are shown in brackets.
                             Correlational Research
● Correlational studies do not inform us about cause;
  [rather, they reveal relationships and help us form
  reasonable hypotheses (informed predictions) about
  whether or not one event or variable causes another].
● Correlational research tells whether the values of two
  variables are related.




Extracted from Prentice-Hall Ch. 1 PP Slide Show for Davis & Palladino Text, Psychology, 4th Edition. Dr. Vessels’ additions are shown in brackets.
Making Inferences about Causality
   Hypothesis: Children who watch
   violence on television tend to be more
   aggressive toward their peers and
   siblings.
   Question: Can we infer a causal
   relationship between these two
   variables?
      Watching     +        Violent
     Violence on           Behavior
          TV
Inferences about Causality
Answer: not necessarily
Explanation: Although causality implies
correlation, correlation does not
necessarily imply causality.
Elaboration: There are at least three
other ways to explain the correlation
between TV viewing and aggressive
behavior.
 Three Plausible Alternative
 Inferences about Causality
(1) Acting aggressively makes you want
    to watch more violent TV


  Watching        +         Violent
   Violent                 Behavior
   on TV
The 2nd Plausible Alternative
 Inference about Causality
(2) Acting violent makes you want to
    watch more TV and watching TV
    makes you act more violently

   Watching       +
                            Violent
    Violent       +        Behavior
    on TV
  The 3rd Plausible Alternative
   Inference about Causality
(3) A “third variable” influences both
    variables, causing them to be correlated
    Watching                    Violent
    Violence                   Behavior
     on TV


         +       Living in a     +
                   Violent
                   Family
How do we choose from
  these possibilities?
One way to do so is to conduct an
experiment.
In an experiment, at least one
variable is manipulated (i.e.
systematically varied) by a researcher
in order to study its effects on another
variable.
           Experimental Research
     Basic features:
      (a) At least one variable is manipulated or
          varied by the experimenter: independent
          variable (IV)
      (b) Another variable that is expected to be
          changed by the manipulation is called the
          dependent variable (DV)
      (c) Random assignment to two groups

        Watching         +
IV                                  Violent      DV
         Violent
                                   Behavior
         on TV
                        Experimental Research
               Because it can . . . [support] cause-and-
               effect statements, . . . the experimental
               method is the most powerful . . .
               By manipulating an independent variable
               (the possible cause), the researcher . . .
               [can determine with reasonable certainty]
               . . . . whether [or not] it influences the
               dependent variable (the effect).
Extracted from Prentice-Hall Ch. 1 PP Slide Show for Davis & Palladino Text, Psychology, 4th Edition.   Dr. Vessels’ additions are shown in brackets.
Possible Specifics of Experimental Study
          IV                      DV

 The Independent           The Dependent
 Variable is               Variable is
 watching                  aggressive
 violence on TV            behavior
 Levels:                   Operational
 (a) view an episode of    definition:
 the Sopranos
                           The number of times
 (b) view an episode of    the child punches
 the Sopranos in which     his or her peers on
 the violent scenes have   the playground
 been edited
         Single Group or Within-Subject Designs
                               Versus
      Multiple Group or Between-Subject Designs


●   The former offers at least some control through pre-post testing.
●   The latter offers control through random assignment of subjects,
    which makes the groups equivalent. Pre-post testing can still be
    used, which essentially incorporates a within-subject aspect that
    strengthens the study.
●   When random assignment is not possible and intact groups must
    be used, control is only achieved through pre-post testing in both
    groups and using the same statistical test as with the random
    groups design with pre-post testing (ANCOVA), but with needed
    adjustments based on the reliability of measures used.
Threats to Internal Validity or Cause-Effect Inferences
There are many threats to internal validity in single group or within-
subject studies as seen below, and these are not removed with pretesting.




There is only one threat to internal validity when using multiple-group or
between-subject designs: the groups not being comparable before the study.
This threat is called selection bias. A selection threat is anything other than
the program that results in posttest differences between groups.
     Primary Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Single Group Threats. Retrieved fromhttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intsing.htm
  There Are Two Major Types of
     Experimental Research
(1) True experimental research design
   –   Search for cause-and-effect
       relationships in a “manipulated
       environment”
   –   Random assignment to groups
   –   Independent variable manipulated
Two Major Types of Experimental
     Research Continued
(2) Quasi-experimental research design
    – Search for cause-and-effect
      relationships in a “manipulated
      environment”
    – No random assignment to groups
    – Independent variable manipulated
 Are subjects assigned randomly to
 experimental and control groups?

  YES                                                                 NO

                                               Is there a comparison group?
Randomized or                                  Are there pre-post measures?
True Experiment


                                             YES                                                      NO


                     Quasi-Experiment                                                   Non-Experiment


   Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Types of Designs. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/destypes.htm
         Two-Group Posttest-Only Randomized
                    Experiment
●       This is the simplest experimental design.
●       The experimental group gets the treatment or program or
        independent variable (X) and the control group doesn't.
●       Notice that a pretest is not required for this design because we
        assume that the two groups are equivalent to begin with.



                                      R                           X                        O
                                      R                                                    O
    Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Two-Group Experimental Designs. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expsimp.htm
The Analysis of Covariance Design (ANCOVA or ANACOVA) is
simply a pretest-posttest randomized experimental design.

The pre-program measure or pretest is called a "covariate"
because we "covary" it with the outcome variable in order to
remove variability or “noise.” The ANCOVA design is a "noise
reduction" experimental design.

It "adjusts" for the effects of one variable on another. You can use
any continuous variable as a covariate. The pretest is usually best
because it is the most highly correlated with the posttest. When you
"remove' it, you remove extraneous variability from the posttest.


                                    R O X O
                                    R O                                                   O
  Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Covariance Designs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expcov.htm
      Categorizing Other Experimental Designs
     We can divide all other experimental designs into two
     categories: signal enhancers and noise reducers. Enhancing
     the “signal” (effects) or reducing the “noise” (variability)
     improves the research.

     The signal-enhancing experimental designs are called
     factorial designs. Here the focus is on aspects of the program
     or treatment and how they are separated in the study plan. In a
     typical factorial design there are many different variations of the
     treatment or independent variable.

     There are two types of noise-reducing experimental
     designs: covariance designs and blocking. These designs
     use information about the makeup of the sample or about pre-
     program variables to remove some of the noise in your study.

Primary Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Classifying Experimental Designs. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expclass.htm
The signal-enhancing experimental designs are called
factorial designs. Here the focus is on aspects of the program
or treatment and how they are set up in the study. In a typical
factorial design there are many different variations of the
treatment or independent variable.




   Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Factorial Designs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/expfact.htm
               Quasi-Experimental Research Designs
The Non-Equivalent Groups Design (NEGD) is frequently used
in social research. It is structured like a pretest-posttest
randomized experiment but lacks random assignment. Intact
treatment and comparison groups are used instead. There are
other quasi-experimental designs besides the NEGD.

The NEGD is especially vulnerable to internal validity threats.
Prior differences between the groups may affect the outcome of
the study. This can lead to the conclusion that a program did not
have an effect when in fact it did, or that it did have an effect when
in fact it didn't.

                                                  N O X O
                                                  N O                                                  O
 Source: Trochim, William M.K. (2005). Quasi-Experimental Designs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasiexp.htm
                   Ethics
A branch of philosophy in which we study and
evaluate arguments about right and wrong
actions.

              Research ethics

A branch of philosophy in which we study and
evaluate arguments about right and wrong
actions in the search for generalizable
knowledge, scientific theories and principles,
and technological advancement.
          Research Ethics Topics
1. Data acquisition, management, sharing,
   and ownership
2. Mentor / trainee responsibilities
3. Publication practices and responsible
     authorship
4. Peer review
5. Collaborative science
6. Research involving human subjects
7. Research involving animal subjects
8. Research misconduct
9. Conflict of interest and commitment

                - NIH Core Instructional Areas
      The Ethics of Human Research
                 Is About:
• Doing valid research (using accepted scientific
  methods)
• Appropriate sampling (to get valid results)
• Respecting people and their communities
• Protecting research participants
• Benefiting individuals and society
• Creating a basis for socially beneficial policies
• Disseminating findings effectively
• Facilitating the application of findings
        Well Known Major Cases
Involving Unethical Research in the U.S.

      Tuskegee Syphilis Study 1932-1972
      U.S. Radiation Experiments 1940s
      Willowbrook Study, NY 1956-1972
      Milgram Study, 1961
      Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, 1963
      U.S. Army LSD studies/National Airport,
      1963-4
      Stanford Prison Study, 1971
      Nazi War Crimes - WWII
                                 Victims of Dr. Josef Mengele's
                                    medical experiments at
                               Auschwitz-Birkenau. Poland, 1944.




Nazi physician Carl Clauberg
performed medical experiments on prisoners
in Block 10 of the Auschwitz camp.
Poland, between 1941 and 1944
         Mid 20th Century
            Scandals
Willowbrook State School, Staten Island, NY, 1950s
    • Children at this institution for the retarded
        were fed extracts of stools from individuals
        infected with the hepatitis virus.
    • Justification by Willowbrook’s Research Director, Dr. Saul Krugman,
        was that children in the crowded facility would likely contract
        hepatitis anyway.
    • Parental “permission” was obtained through misleading them about
        lengthy admission process for non-participating children.
Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Cancer Experiments - 1960s
    • Twenty two chronically ill, debilitated, non-cancer patients injected
        with live human cancer cells
    • They were not told about the cancer cells because doctors
        (researchers) "did not wish to stir up any unnecessary anxieties in
        the patients" who had "phobia and ignorance" about cancer.
    • Research funded by U.S.P.H.S. and American Cancer Society.
    • Two years later, the American Cancer Society elected the principal
        investigator to be their Vice-President.
Stanford Prisoner Study
         1971



    http://www.prisonexp.org/
                      PHS Syphilis
                         Study
                     Disclosed 1972

1932, Public Health Service study, in collaboration with the
Tuskegee Institute in Macon County, Alabama, undertook a
study of untreated syphilis in hopes of justifying treatment
programs for blacks.
600 black men (399 with syphilis, 201 without) were told they
had "bad blood," a local term used to describe syphilis, anemia,
and fatigue.
Penicillin, treatment of choice, was discovered in 1940s but
was withheld.
In exchange for taking part in the study, the men received free
medical exams, free meals, and burial insurance. Although
originally projected to last 6 months, the study actually went
on for 40 years.
                    PHS Syphilis Study
To entice their continued participation, PHS doctors sent them a
letter titled, “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The men
submitted to painful and dangerous spinal taps.

The fact that autopsies would
eventually be required was
also concealed.


The Surgeon General of the
United States participated in
enticing the men to remain in
the experiment, sending them
certificates of appreciation
after 25 years in the study.


By end of study in 1970s, 28 men were dead of syphilis, 100 were
dead of related complications, 40 of their wives were infected, and
19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis.
                 Scientists Behaving Badly
          BC Martinson, MS Anderson, & R de Vries. (2005). Nature, 435: 737-38




• NIH funded survey
• 3,247 early/mid
  career
• (~47% rr)

   Engaged in
Top 10 Behaviors
• Early = 28%
• Mid = 38%
• Overall = 33%

plus expect an
underreporting bias.
                 Significant Events

PHS Syphilis Study, formerly “Tuskegee Study”

       Nuremberg Code 1947

                             U.S. Scandals
                             Henry Beecher: "Ethics and Clinical Research"
                             Public Health Service Policy Adopting IRBs
                             Declaration of Helsinki

                                       Stanford Prisoner Study (1971)
                                       PHS “Tuskegee Study” Revealed (1972)
                                       National Research Act & 45 CFR 46

                                                Belmont Report (1979)


1930     1940      1950      1960      1970      1980
Common Rule 1991
                    Significant Events
        Nicole Wan dies at Rochester 1996

                   President Clinton apologizes to PHS Syphilis study survivors

                             Jesse Gelsinger dies at U Penn
                             OPRR shuts down LA VA Medical, Duke, U Ill, UC, U Penn

                                    OPRR shuts down VCU, UAB, U Okla
                                    OPRR reorganized as OHRP, moved to Cabinet level
                                    and Director replaced, June 2000

                                           Ellen Roche dies at Johns Hopkins; OHRP
                                           suspends JH federally funded research

                                                Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human
                                                    Research Protections replaces National
                                                    Human Research Protections Advisory
                                                                               Committee
1990    1996       1997      1999   2000    2001 2002
       Ethical Framework

             P               C
Principles                   Consequences


                     I
                 Interests
                    FFP?
Fabrication is making up results and recording or
reporting the fabricated results.

Falsification is manipulating research materials,
equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data
or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record.

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's
ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit and without specific approval,
including those obtained through confidential review of
others' research proposals and manuscripts.
    Belmont Report, 1979
National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research

This report is the basis of all federal
regulations regarding the protection of
human subjects in research


http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belm
ont.htm
Historical Review – Ethical Codes
          Belmont Report
9/30/1978 the National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
submitted its report entitled “The Belmont Report:
Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Research.”

The Report, named after the Belmont Conference Center
at the Smithsonian Institution where the discussions
were held, sets forth the basic ethical principles
underlying the acceptable conduct of research involving
human subjects.
       Belmont Report, 1979
       Articulates 3 Basic Ethical Principles:

   Respect For Persons – Autonomy of the
    Individual

   Beneficence – Risk Minimization

   Justice – Burdens and Benefits of Research
    are Equitably Distributed
Historical Review – Ethical Codes
          Belmont Report
Respect for persons – informed consent which
contains the three elements: information,
comprehension and voluntariness

Beneficence – risk/benefits assessment: study is
carefully designed so that the benefits are maximized
and any potential harm is minimized (benefit is not
monetary!)

Justice – requires all subjects be treated fairly: selection
of research subjects must be the result fair selection
procedures and fair selection outcomes
  The Belmont Report
Respect for Persons
– Recognition of personal dignity and
  autonomy
– Special protection of those with
  diminished autonomy
– Informed Consent
      Information
      Comprehension
      Voluntariness
  The Belmont Report
Beneficence
– Obligation to protect persons from harm
– Maximize anticipated benefit, minimize
  possible harm
– Risk/benefit ratio
     Risk – probability, magnitude
     Benefit – subject, society
         The Belmont Report
    Justice
     – Fair distribution of research benefits and
       burdens
     – Inclusion/exclusion on scientific basis
       rather than convenience, availability
     – Two levels of justice
            Social
            Individual

** More information about the Belmont Report can be found in the
    UI Investigator’s Guide Chapter 2.
 Federal Regulations
DHHS
– Title 45 CFR Part 46


FDA
– Title 21 CFR Part 50, Protection of
  Human Subjects
– Title 21 CFR Part 56, Institutional
  Review Boards
Federal Regulations for the Protection
  of Subjects from Research Risks
     (Based on Belmont Report)


        45 CFR Part 46

               1981
    45 CFR 46
Subpart A -- Basic Protections

Subpart B -- Pregnant Women,
Neonates and Fetuses

Subpart C -- Prisoners

Subpart D -- Children
               Oversight
Federal law requires the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) to issue regulations for
the protection of human subjects in research
projects [codified at Title 45, Part 46 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Protection of Human
Subjects]

The Office of Human Research Protections
(OHRP) is the unit within DHHS that implements
the regulations for the protection of human
subjects
    Fundamental Provisions of
    45 CFR Part 46, Subpart A

•   Assurance of Compliance

•   IRB requirements

•   Legally effective informed
    consent
 Assurance of Compliance (1)

Each institution engaged in research
covered by 45 CFR part 46 and which
is conducted or supported by HHS
shall provide assurance satisfactory
to the HHS Secretary that it will
comply with the requirements set
forth in 45 CFR part 46 [45 CFR
46.103(a)].
    Assurance of Compliance (2)

•   Statement of principles governing
    institution in the discharge of its
    responsibilities for protecting the
    rights and welfare of human subjects
•   Designation of one or more IRBs
•   List of IRB members
•   Written IRB procedures
              [45 CFR 46.103(b)]
      What is an IRB?
Independent panel conducts review of
proposed research, to protect the rights and
welfare of participants
–   At least 5 members, both genders
–   Diversity and appropriate expertise
–   Varied professions
        Scientists
        Non-scientists
–   At least one unaffiliated member
–   Sensitive to community attitudes
–   Knowledge of vulnerable populations
–   Ad hoc consultants
        IRB Requirements

•    Membership
•    Functions and operations
•    Review of research (initial and
    continuing)
•    Expedited review procedures
•    Criteria for IRB approval
•    Records
           [45 CFR 46.107-111]
IRB Review and Approval (46.111)
This section of the regulations provides the
criteria for IRB approval of research. It includes
requirements, such as:

- risks to subjects are minimized,

- risks are in relation to anticipated benefits,

- selection of subjects is equitable,

- informed consent will be sought from each
  subject, and will be appropriately documented,
45 CFR 46 – IRB Composition
   At least 5 members
   Quorum = more than half
   Varying backgrounds
   One member nonscientific (required
   for quorum)
   One member not affiliated
   No individual conflict of interest
45 CFR 46 – IRB Duties
Review and approve, require
modifications (for approval), or disapprove
research
Require informed consent and
documentation as required by regulations
Notify investigator in writing
Continuing review at intervals appropriate
to degree of risk (at least annually)
45 CFR 46 – IRB Approval Criteria
   Risks to subjects minimized
   Risks to subjects reasonable in relation to
    – anticipated direct benefit
    – knowledge to be gained
   Selection of subjects equitable
   Informed consent sought and documented
   Appropriate provisions for monitoring safety
   Provisions to protect privacy & confidentiality
   Additional safeguards for vulnerable populations

   UI Investigator’s Guide Chapter 6, Section F
  Types of IRB Review
1) Determination if human
     subjects research

2) Exempt

3) Expedited Review

4) Full Committee Review
    IRB Review and Approval (46.111)
This section of the regulations provides the
criteria for IRB approval of research. It
includes requirements, such as:

-   risks to subjects are minimized,

-   risks are in relation to anticipated benefits,

-   selection of subjects is equitable,

-   informed consent will be sought from each
    subject, and will be appropriately documented,
    IRB Review and Approval (46.111)
                (cont’d)
This section of the regulations provides the
criteria for IRB approval of research. It
includes requirements, such as:

-   the research plan makes adequate provision
    for monitoring of data,

-   adequate provisions for privacy/confidentiality
    of subjects,

-   when subjects are likely to be vulnerable –
    adequate safeguards have been included
             45 CFR 46 – Vulnerable
                  Populations
    Subpart D – Children
     –     No greater than minimal risk – one signature may
           be sufficient
     –     Greater than minimal risk, prospect of direct benefit
           – one signature may be sufficient
     –     Greater than minimal risk, no prospect of direct
           benefit, likely to yield knowledge about
           condition/disorder – two signatures
     –     None of above, but opportunity to understand,
           prevent, alleviate serious problem affecting
           health/welfare of children – two signatures

UI Investigator’s Guide, Chapter 8, Section C
    Methods of Assuring Confidentiality

•   Gather data anonymously
•   Strip off identifiers
•   Certificates of confidentiality
•   Data brokering
•   Encryption of data stored online
•   “Ethical proofreading” of qualitative descriptions
•   Statistical methods
•   Inter-file linkage
•   Error inoculation
•   Top coding
   BPS Ethical Principles for Conducting
   Research with Human Participants 1
Respect and consideration for participants:
● (Informed) Consent
  ● provision of information about, e.g.
     • objectives of study (ensure promises realistic)
     • what is required of participants
  ● competence of potential participants
  ● freedom to give voluntary consent
● Deception
  ● to be avoided if possible
● Debriefing
  ● to complete participant understanding
BPS Professional Code of Conduct (2000)
     British Psychological Society
  Competence
   – maintain and develop, recognise and work
     within limits
  Consent
   – obtain valid and informed consent of participants

  Confidentiality
   – maintain adequate records but preserve
     confidentiality of information

  Personal Conduct
   – behave professionally, not damaging clients or
     undermining public confidence
Researcher Safety and Well-Being
 Physical safety (re accident, illness,
 violence)
  –   Lone and night working
  –   Travel
  –   Dangerous working conditions
  –   Organisational procedures
 Psychological well-being
  – Exposure to distressing information
  – Harassment, intimidation, etc.
 Reputation
  – Unsuitable or illegal situations
 BPS Ethical Principles for Conducting
 Research with Human Participants 2
● Withdrawal from the investigation
  ● during procedure or subsequently
● Confidentiality
● Protection of participants
  ● from physical/psychological harm in
    procedures
  ● from exacerbating pre-existing conditions
● Observational research
● Giving advice
● Colleagues
          Data Protection
Obtaining data
 – Legitimate interest (limited to requirements)
 – Consent (informed as to storage, use, etc.)
Processing and storing
 – Manual or electronic
 – Security
Disclosing
 – Awareness, security, permission
Deleting or archiving
 – Period, reason, security
        Informed Consent
Participants should not be:
   – Physically harmed
   – Psychologically harmed
   – Forced to participate, or be unreasonably
     compelled to participate
Levels of Risk to Participants
No risk – anonymous educational testing,
observing public behavior, studying publicly
available documents, etc.
Minimal risk – taking recordings using
physical sensors, having healthy volunteers
doing moderate exercise, doing research on
such topics as perception, cognition, etc.
More than minimal risk – research involving
deception and debriefing, collecting
confidential responses regarding potentially
embarrassing behaviors, etc.
   Courses for Instructors
Kenneth Pimple, Poynter Center, Indiana
   University
   Teaching Research Ethics
   http://poynter.indiana.edu/tre
   4 days
                Websites
ORI
  http://ori.hhs.gov
  RCR Education Products
     – General Subject Authorship and
                        –
                          Areas
     – Human Subjects Publication
                        –
     – Animal Subjects Peer Review
                        – Collaboration
     – Data Management  – Mentoring
     – Conflicts of Interest
                        – Research Misconduct
  Points for Discussion
               Publications
Accountability in Research
  http://www.tandf.co.uk/jo
  urnals/titles/08989621.a
  sp
  “The journal publishes original
  empirical, methodological,
  policy
  and theoretical papers, cases
  studies, conference reports and
  book reviews that address
  issues
  of integrity and accountability in
  research.”
                 Publications
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
  http://www.csueastbay.edu/JERHRE
  The Journal “publishes empirical
  research and reviews of empirical
  literature on human research
  ethics…In addition, JERHRE
  seeks to create collaboration
  among institutions and
  researchers concerned about the
  responsible conduct of research.”
                Courses
RCREC Internet Course
   http://rcrec.org/resources
   Responsible Conduct of Research
   Internet Instruction
  –   Animal Subjects
  –   Human Subjects
  –   Data Management
  –   Conflicts of Interest
  –   Authorship
  –   Publication and Peer Review
  –   Collaboration and Mentoring
  –   Research Misconduct
                Courses
Columbia Internet Tutorials
  http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr
  Web-based RCR Tutorials
    – Data Management
    – Conflicts of Interest
    – Authorship and Peer Review
    – Collaboration
    – Mentoring
    – Research Misconduct
                 Courses
CITI:
   Collaborative Institutional Training
   Initiative
   http://www.citiprogram.org

   RCR Course to be released soon
                  Guidance
The Belmont Report
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines.php3

The Nuremberg Code
http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/irb/irb_appendices.htm#j5

NIH online training
Human Participant Protections Education for Research
Teams
http://cme.nci.nih.gov/

Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)
http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/
        OHRP Website

     http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/

Check website for guidance on many
  different ethical and regulatory
          considerations.
                Guidance
Institutional Review Board Guidebook
http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/irb/irb_guidebook.htm

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for the
Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects at NIH
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines.php3

National Science Foundation (NSF) Behavioral and
Cognitive Sciences
http://www.nsf.gov/search97cgi/vtopic

National Science Foundation (NSF) The Common Rule
http://www.nsf.gov/search97cgi/vtopic

								
To top