glass today we're going to be talking about psychological ethics now it's important to note that as we engage in this discussion psychological ethics have developed quite a bit over the years and we're going to see how we began in our early experimental studies and where we ended up and whether the compromise was worth the game in fact that's really gonna be the broad topic of our discussion questions for this week so the concern for ethics in psychological research may be seen as part of the historical trend in civil and human rights before World War two research ethics were considered a matter for the individual researcher to worry about however the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals led to a consciousness of the need for ethical controls and scientific research in addition to the growing of all types of research fueled by increasing government funding for this prompted concern with research ethics as a result research ethics are in a state of rapid evolution some practices that were considered acceptable and routine a few years ago or considered unethical today for this reason we must present our discussion of research ethics as tentative rather than chiseled in stone what will be acceptable practice 10 or 20 years from now cannot be predicted but like with science in general we are more accurate and more ethical than we ever have been now early on in science psychology scientific history people thought that ethics were a little bit less of a concern than they are today and because of this they engaged in quite a bit of quasi ethical and unethical behaviors under the guise of science now we're probably familiar with John Watson's famous little Albert experiment as one as one prominent example as well as the Milgram study which we'll be talking about we also have videos posted to canvas to go over little summations of these studies so as we have done thus far let's start in chronological order research in the 1930s John Watson once said give me a dozen healthy infants well-formed and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select a doctor a lawyer merchant chef and even yes a beggar man and thief regardless of his talents pensions abilities vocations and the race of his ancestors now this was the foundation behind his research in the little Albert experiment Watson sought to support his behaviorist theories through scientific studies of dubious ethical integrity and while he was countering the eugenics movement of the day the idea that people had genetic biases that made them almost guaranteed to play out certain vocations or certain pensions or certain talents he believed in the idea of tabula rasa the idea that people were a blank slate and that the environment and the behaviors with which they were conditioned or the stimuli the condition them would be what shaped who people would become so in the well-known little Albert experiment John Watson who is considered the founder of behaviorism did the father did the following with a nine month old infant named Albert a white rat was placed in front of baby Albert initially he actually didn't show any fear towards the rat as he began playing with the rat a loud and scary noise was produced by one of the experimenters positioned behind baby Albert after a repeated sequence of seeing the white rat and hearing the loud scary noise the baby began to show fear towards the white rat later Albert cried and turned away whenever he saw a white rat or anything similar looking whether it be white objects or white fuzzy objects even though there was no scary noise that came with these other items so he had Watson had successfully paired the fear producing stimuli with the kind of innocuous stimuli of the white rat something that Albert had been curious about prior and with this experiment Watson demonstrated how they a baby could be classically conditioned to have a phobia now obviously there are some pretty significant problems with this right the first one being informed consent it's unclear whether the mother was fully aware when she offered up her child for the psychological research that the that Watson would be conditioning the child to have a phobia that may last throughout the child's life the second one being the ethics of producing such terror and dread in a small child or an anyone for that matter for the benefit of science the idea here is the question is the compromise worth the game and this is kind of the theme of early psychological ethics that the compromise was in fact worth the gain and that the value of the individuals experience was considered to be less than the benefit over all but as time has evolved and as ethics have evolved this was this is no longer considered to be the case so we are going to then move on to research in the 1960s and 1970s and this is where we get the Milgram study Milgram designed an experiment in which a subject believed he was administering a series of increasingly powerful electric shocks to another subject whenever that subject failed to learn a list of words correctly prior to the experiment a panel of experts including psychologists and psychiatrists were asked to predict what percentage of subjects would administer shocks all the way to 450 volts which was the highest amount that the machine that one of the subjects was in charge of indicated was possible they predicted that only one or two percent would do so the more sadistic personality structured individuals in fact 66% of the individuals complied with the instructor the instructions of the experimenter to continue administering shocks all the way to the highest level these were regular well functioning people and not in fact sadistic individuals this classic experiment demonstrated the role of what Murray would have called environmental press influencing the expression of personality and demonstrates in the laboratory the importance of external social pressures interacting with inner personality factors that the interactionist theory of social psychology and personality emphasizes so the idea here is is that Milgram was testing to see whether individuals under social pressures would engage in sadistic behaviors and in fact what he found was that those social pressures were significant even though researchers had predicted that only one to two percent of individuals would actually shock an individual up to 450 volts now the belief was was that 450 volts would severely injure the person in the student role that was receiving the shock and in fact while there was no one actually receiving the shock the test was on the person who was supposedly administering the shock the that person that subject genuinely believed that they were administering that kind of electric shock to their unsuspecting victim and there are videos of this so like with the little Albert experiment you were required to watch the video and some original footage of the Milgram experiment taking place now you might ask yourself well the there's no one actually getting shocked here there's only the belief that somebody is getting shocked so is this experiment unethical well it may not be as unethical as the little Albert study however yet there's still ethical concerns associated with this so I'd encourage you to think about what those might be primarily the ones that will argue in this lecture is that the person who is believed believing they are administering the shock believes they are causing severe harm to another person and if you watch the video you'll see just how far that harm was portrayed to be to the point where the person was made to believe they were rendering another person unconscious based on the pain not knowing how extreme that pain was in fact so this is something that today would not pass muster for ethical standards but we learned an important amount of information about the role of authority and the power of the situation now a contemporary of Stanley Milgram was Philip Zimbardo and another he is another more prominent and really shaping researcher in the field of in particular social psychology in fact he was the president at one point of the American Psychological Association and in 1971 psychologists Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner guard or a prisoner or guard I should say Zimbardo a former classmate of Stanley Milgram at Yale University wanted to further investigate the impact of situational variables on human behavior the question the researchers asked was how would participants react when placed in a simulated prison environment quote suppose you only had kids who were normally healthy psychologically and physically and they knew they would be going into a prison-like environment and that some of their civil rights would be sacrificed now keep in mind this was during the civil rights movement with those good people put in that bad evil place would their goodness triumph sons Umberto explained in one interview the researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University's psychology building Jordan hall and then selected 24 undergraduate students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards the participants were selected from a larger group of 70 volunteers because they had no criminal background lacked psychological issues that were apparently present and had no major medical conditions the volunteers agreed to participate for a one to two week period in exchange for $15 a day the simulated prison included three six by nine foot prison cells each cell held three prisoners and included three cots other rooms across from the cells were utilized for the prison guards and warden only very small spaces were designed designated as solitary confinement room and yet another small room served as the prison yard the 24 volunteers were then randomly assigned to either the prisoner group or the guard group prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24 hours a day for the duration of the study guards on the other hand were assigned to work in three three-man teams four eight-hour shifts after each shift guards were allowed to return to their homes until the next shift researchers were able to observe the behavior of the prisoners and guards using hidden cameras and microphones while the Stanford Prison Experiment experiment was originally slated to last 14 days it had to be stopped after just six days due to what was happening to the student participants the guards became abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety while the prisoners and guards were allowed to interact in any way they wanted the interactions were generally hostile or even humanizing the guards began to behave in ways that were aggressive and abusive towards the prisoners while the prisoners became passive and depressed father that the prisoners began to experience such such severe negative emotions including crying and acute anxiety that they had to be released from the study early even the researchers themselves began to lose sight of the reality of the situation Zimbardo who acted as the prison warden overlooked the abusive behavior of prison guards until his girlfriend at the time and now wife stanford graduate student Christina Maslach voiced objections to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment so we can see this severity of the power of the situation but also even when there is informed consent to a certain extent the power of the experiment to and the desire for the results of the experiment to be favourable to kind of take over and over shadow any ethical concerns that might be present in the administration of the experiment so I would strongly encourage you to watch this video as well it shows not only some of the historical context of the Stanford Prison Experiment but some clips of an original interviews with people who were involved in the experiment now dramatic deficiencies and ethics in research didn't exist in psychology alone and in fact these ethical deficiencies that existed in epidemiological research and science greatly impacted the behavioral sciences the Tuskegee syphilis experiment was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the US Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural black men who thought they were receiving free health care from the US government the Public Health Service working with the Tuskegee Institute began the study in 1932 investigators enrolled in the study total of 600 impoverished sharecroppers from Macon County Alabama 399 who had previously contracted syphilis before the study began and 201 without the disease for participating in the study the men were given free medical care meals and free burial assistance they were never told they had syphilis nor were they ever treated for it according to the Center for Disease Control the men were told they were being treated for quote unquote bad blood a local term for various illnesses that included syphilis anemia and fatigue the 40 year study was controversial for reasons related to ethical standards primarily because researchers knowingly failed to treat patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin as an effective cure for the disease that they were studying so they knew they had a cure and they kept the disease going and they refused to inform their quote-unquote patients of the fact that they have a disease or treat them now studies require informed consent communication of diagnosis and accurate reporting of test results by 1947 penicillin had become the standard treatment for syphilis choices available to doctors involved in the study might have included treating also patients infected infected with syphilis and closing the study or splitting off a control group for testing with penicillin instead the Tuskegee scientists continued the study without treating any participants and withholding penicillin and information about it from the patients in addition scientists were prevented participants their scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to others in the area the study continued under numerous US Public Health Service supervisors until get this 1972 when a leak to the press eventually resulted in its termination on November 16th of that year so almost 1973 the victims of the study included numerous men who died of syphilis wives who contracted the disease and children born with congenital syphilis the Tuskegee syphilis studies was cited as quote arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in US history and led to the 1979 Belmont report and the establishment of the office of for human research protections also known as OHRP it also led to federal laws and regulations requiring institutional review boards or IRB s for protection of human subjects in studying and studies involving human subjects the office for Human Research protections manages this responsibility within the US Department of Health and Human Services so this led to the American Psychological associations ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct which we're going to refer to hereafter as the APA ethics code this consists of an introduction a preamble and six general principles and specific ethical standards the general principles are considered to be broadly aspirational whereas the ethical standards are rules of living for lack of a better way of putting it the introduction discusses the intent organization procedural considerations and scope of application of the ethics code the preamble and the general principles are aspirational goals to guide psychologists towards the highest ideals of psychology although the preamble and general principles are not themselves enforceable rules they should be considered by psychologists in arriving at an ethical course of action and may be considered by ethics bodies and interpreting the ethical standards now the ethical standards set forth enforceable rules for conduct for conduct as a psychologist most of the ethical standards are written broadly in order to apply to psychologists and varied roles although the application of an ethical standard may vary depending on the context the ethical standards are not exhaustive this is important to know the fact that a given conduct is not specifically addressed by the ethics code does not mean that it necessarily is either ethical or alternatively unethical membership in the American Psychological Association which by the way is not mandatory for psychologists but is highly encouraged commits members to adhere to the APA ethics code and to the rules and procedures used implemented psychologists and students whether or not they are APA members should be aware that the ethics code may and very likely would be applied to them by state psychology boards courts or other public bodies because of its prominence and its view by the courts as being an overarching guidebook for psychologists in practice now the ethics code only applies to psychologists work-related activities so that is activities that are part of the psychologists scientific and professional functions or that are cycle functions that are psychological in nature it includes the clinical or counseling practice of psychology and in particular the importance is research for this course teaching and supervision of trainees development of assessment instruments which can be part of both clinical and research practices conducting assessments educational counseling organizational consulting social intervention administration and other activities as well so these work-related activities can be distinguished from the purely private conduct of a psychologist which wouldn't let ordinarily is not within the purview of the ethics code but one might argue could be applied in court cases the ethics code is intended to provide standards of professional conduct that can be applied by the APA and other bodies that choose to adopt them whether or not a psychologist has violated the ethics code or not though does not by itself determine whether he or she or they is legally liable in a court action whether a contract is enforceable or whether other legal consequences occur these results are based on the law rather than ethical rules however as as I alluded to prior compliance with or violation of the ethics code may be admissible as evidence in some legal proceedings depending on the circumstances so in the process of making decisions regarding their professional behavior psychologists really have to consider the ethics code in addition to obviously applicable laws and psychology board read regulations which are often based off of the ethics code so if the ethics code establishes a higher standard of conduct than is required by the law psychologists must meet the higher standard of conduct if the ethics code standard appears to conflict with the requirements of the law then psychologists have to make their own commitment to the ethics code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner if neither law or ethics code resolves an issue psychologists really should consider other professional materials and dictate and the dictates of their own contents as well as seek consultation with others within the field whenever it's practical now the when we look at the various violations of ethical standards the procedures for vow after filing investigating and resolving complaints of unethical conduct are described in the current rules and procedures of the APA ethics code and ethics committee the actions that the APA may take for violations of the ethics code include actions such as a reprimand or censure or termination of a be APA membership and also the referral of the matter to other bodies so for licensed psychologists that are in practice if the violation relates to their practice the APA can refer those violations to the various presiding licensing board now this may seem dry and hard to follow for many of you who are looking at this but really this is important to understand when we look at the fact that not only ethical violations are still happening in the field but also as budding researchers in psychology if you all plan on transferring to four-year institutions and conducting psychological research as part of your major or continuing on to graduate school where you are very likely to be required to engage in some kind of research you need to be familiar with the ethics code and the processes involved in the ethics code or in ethical violations so complainants who seek remedies such as monetary damages in alleging ethical violations by psychologists must resort to private negotiation administrative bodies or the courts so the APA doesn't handle that but actions that violate the ethics code may lead to an imposition of sanctions on a psychologist by bodies other than the APA including state Psychological associations other professional groups psychology boards other state or federal agencies and payers for health services in addition to actions for violations of the ethics code the APA bylaws provide that APA may take actions against members after his/her they their convictions of felony expulsion that which can include expulsion or suspension from an affiliated Psychological Association or suspension or loss of licensure so the reason why we have this slide up is to talk about it what was found in terms of complaints against licensed psychologists that relate to ethically troubling incidents so in 1992 two researchers Pope and Vetter asked 1319 members of the American Psychological Association to describe incidents that they found ethically challenging or troubling and also incidents that involved complaints against them or complaints against colleagues now this was confidential they got 679 psychologists to describe 703 incidents and they were in 23 categories and so we were able to break this down by percentage or they were able to break this down by percentage the first troubling and most prevalent troubling incidents from this relatively small sample for what we're talking about included confidentiality concerns this was 18 percent of the sample so 128 incidents this is pretty significant considering especially when we're talking about research ethics and when we're talking about clinical ethics confidentiality is a huge concern but also blurred duel or conflictual relationships 116 17 percent of the sample this is concerning when we talk about having dual relationships this could be a researcher and a research subject being friends this could be relation extra therapeutic relationships essentially meaning that a therapist and a client have some sort of connection beyond their the patient and therapist relationship but it runs the gamut I mean research complaints that are specifically qualified as research were 4% which could indicate that we are moving in the right direction in terms of our ethical standards and people abiding by them but again these other categories can also fall within the or under the umbrella of ethical violations and research as well so I would encourage you to look through this list there's some that really stand out sexual issues meaning that there are sexual relationships between psychologists or potentially sexual relationships between psychologists and either their patients or research subjects this is a huge no-no and this is one of those things that can result in termination from employment loss of licensure etc this is not something despite some some TV shows or movies that is an accepted practice at all and but the fact that there are four percent that we're reporting this is deeply concerning and questionable or harmful interventions that's another one that is deeply concerning 3% now you may say well these numbers are relatively low all of them are under 20% but consider the sample size you have 703 incidents and you're having 128 incidents of confidentiality concerns that's problematic right and in fact we would consider within this field any concerns taking place there are potential ethical violations or complaints to be problematic at all so the the number matters but we would want these to get down to zero so it's important when we consider the the significance of our role as psychological researchers as budding psychologists and as both students and faculty so as mentioned the APA ethics code is divided into general principles and as well as ethical standards so the general principles are a through e and the first one is beneficence and non malfeasance so this one effectively means do no harm the same concept governing medical doctors psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and to take care to do no harm in their professional action psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons and the welfare of animal subjects of research as well because keep in mind the psychologists don't just study humans they may study animal behavior as well when conflicts occur among psychologists obligations or concerns they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm because psychologists scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives of others they are alert to and guard against personal and financial and social or organizational or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence and psychologists strive to be aware of the possible effect of their own physical and mental health on their ability to help those with whom they work now let's see so principle B is fidelity and responsibility now this one is all about psychologists establishing relationships of trust with whom they work principle B outlines how psychologists are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct clarify their professional roles and obligations accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm psychologists consult with referred to or cooperate with other professionals and instructors or institutions I should say to the extent needed to serve the best interests of those with whom they work they are concerned about ethical compliance of their colleagues scientific and professional conduct so psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no cost compensation or personal advantage principle C is integrity now this one should be self-explanatory but psychologists seek to promote accuracy honesty and truthfulness in the science teaching and practice of psychology so in these activities psychologists do not steal cheat or engage in fraud subterfuge or intentional misrepresentation of fact psychologists strive to keep their promises and to avoid unwise or unclear commitments in situations in which deception may be ethically justifiable to maximize benefit minimize harm psychologists have a serious obligation to consider the need for the possible consequences of and their responsibility to correct any resulting mistrust or other harmful effects that arise from the use of such techniques and we advise against it principle D is justice psychologists recognized that fairness and justice entitle all persons to a set to access to and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality and process procedures and services being conducted by psychologists so psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precautions to ensure that their pretend to ensure their potential biases the boundaries of their confident competence and the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices and finally principle ii respect for people's rights and dignity is sacrosanct psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people and the rights of individuals to privacy confidentiality and self-determination psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision-making psychologists are aware of and respect cultural individual and role differences including those based on age gender gender identity race ethnicity culture national origin religion sexual orientation disability language and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors and do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices so on one hand the ethics code is a broad-based article which outlines what you should and should not do as a psychologist on the other hand it's something of a PR campaign for the public to see that in the wake of the mad scientist esque experiments like the Milgram study in Stanford Prison Experiment we as psychologists and practitioners are guided by and governed by a strict code of behavior the ethics code consists of both general principles and ethical standards as I mentioned and general principles are aspiration and inspirational in nature they quote do not represent obligations and should not for not form the basis for imposing sanctions ethical standards on the other hand are explicit guidelines which tell you what you can and can't do okay so when we move on to ethical standards the directives get much less broad and much more enforceable one of the more core directives when engaging in any kind of psychological research is to gain institutional approval from an ethics committee which governs the ethical character of each research study almost invariably any study in which a researcher requests approval necessitates some sort of revision or some sort of clarification to make sure it meets the utmost ethical standards and care institutional review boards are made up of members of college or university communities such as faculty trustees and even members of the surrounding community to attempt to eliminate bias now the second one that we would look at in terms of an ethical standard is informed consent to research and as a requirement of participation any research we want to make sure that the nightmare and severe deception which took place in the Tuskegee Experiment never happens again as a result the APA mandates that informed consent be given which effectively means outlining the rights benefits and risks of a study to any and all participants so beyond any kind of informed consent that may have been given in say the Stanford Prison Experiment this is considered to be more than just a form built more than just a form but a process involving verbal communication and assurances of understanding by participant researchers go as far as using translators and interpreters to accomplish this for non-native speakers now for experimental treatments the informed consent must specify the experimental nature of treatment services that will or won't be available to the control groups if appropriate the means by which a sign to treatment and control groups will be made available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun and this is an important one the idea that you can withdraw at any time compensation for or monetary costs of participating including if appropriate whether reimbursement from participant or third party will be sought we also need to obtain a psychologist and budding psychologist permission and consent from research participants prior to recording their voices or images for data collection unless the research consists solely of naturalistic observation in public places and is not anticipated the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or harm or the research design includes deception and the cotton content for the use of the recording is obtained during debriefing now it always presents potential issues when a client student or subordinate of any kind is a participant in the researchers study so you see this though in academic contexts where students often participate in research for extra credit or students participate in research that is conducted as part of the class so the ethics code therefore mandates that when a psychologist conducts research with clients or patients or students or subordinates as patients psychologists take steps to provide the prospective participant or to protect I should say the prospective participants from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation when research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra credit the prospective participant is given a choice of equitable alternative activities that are not being part of that study now the only times you can get away with not performing an informed consent is where a research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm and involves the study of normal educational practices curricula or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings so this would essentially mean if I as your instructor was looking at instructional methods and what instructional methods yielded higher grades among all of you the students this is not something that you would necessarily see occurring but it's something that would occur behind the scenes to improve the quality of teaching and administration of information so this would be in an area where I as the instructor for the sake of argument would not need to say to you as the students this is what we're doing because it wouldn't impact you directly in the immediate sense and it wouldn't impact you in a way that would lead to any idea and identifying information being revealed and this is something that occurs behind the scenes in academic institutions all the time another area where we could dispense with informed consent for research purposes is only anonymous questionnaires naturalistic observations or archival research for which disclosures of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damaged or damaged ones financial standing employability or reputation and confidentiality is protected or the study of factors related to job or organizational effectiveness conducted an organizational setting where there's no risk to participants employability confidentiality is protected or alternatively where it's otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations so that's an interesting loophole right there and one that we should be aware of you get a loophole if it's permitted by law or federal or institutional regulation now as the instructor of this course I will tell you we should strive to do better than that just because something is not mandated by law or an organization we should really always be giving informed consent it is true the unethical to not give informed consent because if you're participating in something you should be aware of what you're participating in you shouldn't be forced into it or deceived into it so that's something to keep in mind as you set forth as budding researchers should you do this in your your academic futures or professional futures remember that informed consent is always a good idea and there's always ethical so we also need to consider are we offering anything to research participants for participating in the study so it's it is if so it is important that psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements for research participation when such inducements are likely to coerce participation so an example of this is recruiting participants from improv impoverished areas ring a bell that's what happened in the Tuskegee syphilis study offering them a significant amount of money offering them health care where they don't previously have health care they're in a sense coerced they really don't have a viable alternative to participating in that research so when offering professional services as an inducement for research participation psychologists clarify the nature of services as well as the risks obligations and limitations as well so another big question research is is it okay to lie to your participants when necessary well the ethical standards state that psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the studies significant prospective scientific educational or applied value and that the effective non-deceptive alternatives procedures are not feasible this is what the ethics code says but it is questionable whether one should use deception at all psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about the research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress psychologists explain any deception that isn't integral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment to participants as early as is feasible preferably at the conclusion of their participation but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection and permit participants to withdraw their data so if they were deceived and they participate and they feel offended by the deception they can request and it has to be abided by that their data be pulled from the study now this is so what happens after the study is it just over and you don't find out anything about what you just participated in and why well the answer is no section 808 the debriefing outlines that psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about the nature results and conclusions of research and that they take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that participants may have of which the psychologists are aware if scientific work humane values justified delaying or withholding this information psychologists have to take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm and when psychologists become aware that research procedures have harmed a participant they have to take reasonable steps to minimize that harm and to respond to that as well what about the part participants in our research that are unwilling and non-human well the APA ethics code is a bit more broad on this one the key points to try to follow is to maximize care of the animal while it's being experimented on use anesthesia and painkillers to minimize discomfort and to be well trained and caring for the animals you're working with but this is usually less of an issue for psychologists and is more for biologically oriented scientists but still something to be aware of so finally what do we do when we have our data write it up and hang it on our wall as an accomplishment no we're required to attempt to get it published and make it public but there are some rules on how we go about doing this reporting research sults we can't fabricate our data okay and if psychologists discover significant errors in their published study they need to take reasonable steps to correct such errors in a correction retraction or other appropriate publication means psychologists also don't present their published works or another's published work or work in general as the data that is their own as a publication that is their own even if the other work or data is sourced and unsighted so if your this is to say if you're citing somebody else's source and it's all somebody else's information and the way you're presenting it is to say this is my paper and the paper is entirely made up of with quotes that's presenting somebody else's information even if you are appropriately quoting that person the paper is majority somebody else's and not yours so obviously that's not going to get published but that's an issue for academic paper submissions as well when you're doing your research papers for this course if the majority of it is quoted material then the majority of the written words on the page are somebody else's so even if you're citing that technically according to the APA ethics code this counts as plagiarism so it's something to avoid quotes are fine but they can't make up the majority of your work and oftentimes when we were working on a research project it isn't just us that's working on it large research teams are set up with primary and primary secondary and tertiary levels of investigators graduate students and undergraduate research assistants it's often up to the principal investigator or the one in charge of the project or a research lab to determine who gets their name on the paper being a member of the research team does not ensure that you will get your appropriate level of credit or even that you will get credit at all so this is why it's extremely important to approach the principal investigator early on to establish authorship standing before the paper is sent off be published now there are numerous examples of issues with published works around this where you have large teams of research assistants that may be undergraduate students like yourselves or graduate students that believe just doesn't matter of course they're gonna get publication credit and that doesn't happen in fact sometimes the research team that previously worked on a previous paper might get publication credit for yours so it's really important to talk to the faculty members and primary researchers principal investigators to work this out ahead of time before you start putting in time and effort into it and if there's resistance to working this out ahead of time buyer beware so here's another example of getting credit so Jocelyn Bell is a twenty was a 24 year old graduate student and over two years Bell and other students under the supervision of Bell's thesis advisor advisor Anthony Hewish had built a 4.5 acre radio telescope Bell noticed replicated scruff on the data charts and by measuring the period of its reoccurrence she determined that it had had to be coming from an extraterrestrial source which means not a alien source but a one from another world so not necessarily another life-form but stuff that was found in the universe the data analyzed and published jointly by Bell and Hewish was put out there but Hewish was the one who received the Nobel Prize not the person who actually discovered it because who was the principal investigator II wish okay so this is something to keep in mind is is potentially problematic but it's also underscores the reason why this stuff should be worked out ahead of time okay so once we publish our paper can be published it again elsewhere or submitted to multiple journals or magazines well no the APA doesn't allow for this when you publish something and this is true of any literary work not just a scientific article you are actually transferring the copyright and ownership to whoever it Publishing it so if you try to publish it at another source you're violating the copyright even if you wrote it so how do we know that when something is published the results are accurate couldn't I just make up a ton of data and write a paper about it and just not tell anybody well after research results are published psychologists are mandated by the APA to not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from another from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through re analysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless the legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release this does not preclude psychologists from requiring such individuals or groups to be responsible for a cost associated with the provision of such information but it's just to say that the data needs to be open for analysis finally who is checking for accuracy and quality of the research being conducted well article 815 says that psychologists whose who review material submitted for presentation publication grant or research proposal review respect the confidentiality of and the property rights in such information of those who submitted it okay so we covered a lot of ground and we were able to look through not only the course of history around some key highlights of questionably ethical research projects and contributions to the field but we were also able to look through the APA ethics code as well so you have your discussion questions due by the end of this week Sunday at 11:59 p.m. for the usual and you also have several videos associated with this lecture that you are required to view as you will be tested on its content and it will benefit you greatly in those discussion questions so remember post your answers to the discussion questions and to substantive answers to questions or comments on your classmates responses as well okay so don't wait to the last minute to do this I will be looking through your responses and he in there I'll be responding as well if you have any questions or comments but I will be reading each and every one of your responses so if you have any individual questions that you want to send my way please inbox me through canvas and otherwise I wish you a wonderful week and I will look forward to interacting with you online Hereafter all right take care everybody