Newsletter

April 2002

Over-Concern With Research Ethics

Ed Diener

Ed Diener, President

Society for Personality and Social
Psychology

In 1978 I co-authored a book
on research ethics, believing that investigators needed to be more sensitive
to ethical issues. Since that time, I have become concerned that ethics
review boards have become overly sensitive, sometimes to the point of craziness.
One recent example: An investigator moves to a new institution and brings
old data with him. The new university requires that he must have all the
old studies reviewed, even though they were reviewed at the institution
where the data were collected and even though the studies are all completed,
if he is going to do any more analyses on the data.

The problem is not just with
the federal government guidelines – it is with institutions that go far
beyond the guidelines in worrying about possible problems that have a remote
chance of arising. We are in the strange situation where many ethics review
committees are adding on increasing hurdles, paperwork, and rules, at the same time that participation
in research has become one of the safest activities in which our subjects
participate. Think of it – dating, driving, playing sports, working, watching
movies, eating, and sex are all much more harmful on average than participation
in the vast majority of behavioral science studies. What can be done to
make the review procedures and level of scrutiny equivalent to the very,
very low risks in most psychological studies? Our ethics review panels
need to be reminded of several things:

1. The rules of NIH (National
   Institutes of Health) provide large exemptions from review of many of the
   methods used in psychological research. These exemptions were provided
   because the types of research which are exempted were considered ethically
   trivial by those who wrote the laws. Exemption from review for research
   without true risk of harm needs to be granted much more often.
2. Prototypes of certain
   types of research protocols can be given approval, and research thereafter
   that fits into these prototypes can be granted expedited review. This modular
   approach to ethics approval could be used much more to save investigators
   from lengthy paper chases.
3. Review panels need to
   be reminded that they have an ethical obligation not only to protect research
   participants, but also to foster good research. It is unethical to block
   or slow research that can benefit society and science, unless there is
   good cause in a particular instance. Thus, to the extent that a board imposes
   lengthy delays, extensive applications that take away researchers’ time,
   and will not exempt research that fits certain broad categories, the review
   panels are obligated ethically to provide compensatory assistance to researchers
   to offset these costs. The review panels cannot simply impose delays, moral
   qualms, and demands without also giving offsetting aid to researchers (e.g.,
   help in completing the forms, advice on getting the research approved,
   funding to comply with the requirements, and so forth). Ethics review boards
   need to understand that society profits greatly from research, and they
   have an obligation both to protect subjects and to foster research.
   One suggestion is that review committees grant expedited review (very quick
   and easy check-off forms) for all research that does not contain risk of
   harm beyond everyday life, is not deceptive, and which does not contain
   highly sensitive information.

We have come to the point
where ethics review committees are starting to impede research in many
cases. Overly-nervous people are sometimes drawn to these committees, and
universities are increasingly fearful of the federal government. In this
climate, active researchers must work to keep ethics reviews in proportion
to the actual risks that are involved in behavioral research. Judging from
the virtual nonexistence of documented harm in our studies, the risks are
almost always close to zero.

Reprinted
from Dialogue: The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and
Social Psychology Newsletter, Fall 2001.