Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:45:03.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Scientists Deceive: Applying the Federal Regulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Collin C. O'Neil  and
Franklin G. Miller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Informed consent is a basic ethical and legal requirement for human subjects research. The U.S. federal regulations governing research on human subjects stipulate general requirements for informed consent. Investigators are required to disclose to prospective subjects material information about the purpose, procedures, and likely consequences of the study, among other things. However, investigators sometimes employ deception for methodological reasons. In order to keep subjects’ responses unbiased, investigators deceive subjects about such things as the fact that they are taking part in research, the purpose of the research, the research interventions or interactions, or the likely consequences of those interventions or interactions. When investigators deceive subjects about such aspects of a study, the study fails to meet these general requirements for informed consent.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , Summer 2009 , pp. 344 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1991, The Common Rule, Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, §46.116 (General Requirements for Informed Consent).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991, The Common Rule, Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, § 46.116(d).Google Scholar
Miller, F. G. and Kaptchuk, T. J., “Deception of Subjects in Neuroscience: An Ethical Analysis,” Journal of Neuroscience 28, no. 19 (2008): 4841–4843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deception and Incomplete Disclosure, IRB Guidebook, Section B, 2008, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_chapter3.html> (last visited March 15, 2009).+(last+visited+March+15,+2009).>Google Scholar
Plassmann, H., O'Doherty, J., Shiv, B. and Rangel, A., “Marketing Actions Can Modulate Neural Representations of Experienced Pleasantness,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, no. 3 (2008): 1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1991, The Common Rule, Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, § 46.102(i).Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).Google Scholar
Miller, F. G., Wendler, D. and Swartzman, L. C., “Deception in Research on the Placebo Effect,” PLOS Medicine 2, no. 9 (2005): e262; Wendler, D. and Miller, F. G., “Deception in the Pursuit of Science,” Archives of Internal Medicine 164, no. 6 (2004): 597-600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isen, A. M. and Levin, P. F., “Effect of Feeling Good on Helping: Cookies and Kindness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21, no. 3 (1972): 384–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, R. L., Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
Sieber, J. E., “Deception in Social Research III: The Nature and Limits of Debriefing,” IRB 5, no. 3 (1983): 1–6.Google Scholar