March 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  


Search





About
This Blog
The author
     My Webpage
     My Faculty Profile
     My Curriculum Vitae (CV)
     Contact me


Archives
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003


Categories


Links to my published articles online
List of Publications with Full Citations

2006
Adolescent Diary Weblogs and the Unseen Audience

2005
Conversations in the Blogosphere: An Analysis "from the Bottom Up". Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-38) Best Paper Nominee.

Weblogs as a bridging genre

2004
Bridging the Gap: A Genre Analysis of Weblogs. Winner of the 2004 EduBlog Awards as best paper.

Common Visual Design Elements of Weblogs

Women and Children Last: The Discursive Construction of Weblogs

Time until my next publication submission deadline
27 March 2006 23:59:59 UTC-0500


Links to my conference papers online
2005
The Performativity of Naming: Adolescent Weblog Names as Metaphor

2004
Buxom Girls and Boys in Baseball Hats: Adolescent Avatars in Graphical Chat Spaces

Time until my next conference submission deadline
31 March 2006 23:59:59 UTC-0500


Bibliographies
Adolescents and Teens Online Bibiliography
Last updated July 8, 2005.

Weblog and Blog Bibliography
Last Updated November 22, 2005.

My CiteULike Page

My Book2
New books are added but reading status is rarely accurate.


February 18, 2004

Today's Reading - Scientists and Subjects

Pedroni, Julia A. & Pimple, Kenneth D. (2001). A Brief Introduction to Informed Consent in Research with Human Subjects. Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions [On-line].

Notes from a close reading: The article introduces the history of informed consent codes tying existing rules to the Nuremberg Code, through the Declaration of Helsinki, and the International Ethical Guidelines adopted by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). This short history grounds the article and allows the reader to understand from whence informed consent rules have come.

Consequentialist and nonconsequentialist reasons can be used to justify the status of informed consent as a fundamental principle of ethical research with human subjects. The consequentialist reason asserts that one should adopt as doing so would have the best expected results compared with alternatives. The authors present the following contentions to support this reason:

      1) Obtaining subjects' informed consent to participation tends to increase their adherence to the protocol, and hence the quality of the research.      
      2) Since investigators are not always able to identify the risks their research may pose to subjects, a process of informed consent provides the benefits of an additional layer of risk review tailored o the interests of the individual subject.      
      3) Affirming a principle of informed consent is likely to foster public trust of the research community; without such trust the research enterprise could not flourish. (p. 3)      

One can also apply consequentialist reasoning to the position against informed consent. These arguments would include: the process is expensive, time consuming, and can create a self-selection bias. Additionally the reasons for support listed above can be invalidated.

Nonconsequentialist reasons for adopting a principle of informed consent rest on the intrinsic qualities of persons or actions. This can provide a more robust foundation then the consequentialist perspective since it requires researchers acquire informed consent regardless of the expected consequences of doing so. The Belmont Report utilizes a nonconsequentialist rationale in its principle of informed consent.

Two notions of informed consent are drawn from Faden and Beauchamp (1986) The first meaning is a moral sense that defines consent as the "autonomous authorization" of an individual's involvement in research (Faden et al., 1986, p. 276). The second meaning is a socio-legal definition which establishes "legally or institutionally effective authorization (Faden et al., 1986, p. 281).

The authors present four elements of informed consent including providing information in one of three standards (professional practice, reasonable person, or subjected), subjects must substantially understanding the information, authorization must be freely given, and subjects must have the capacity to make the decision on their own. There are a limited number of reasons why informed consent would not be required.

Two circumstances where informed consent is undesirable are noted: a) when a signed form may pose a risk to the subject, and b) when obtaining informed consent may diminish the scientific merit of the research. In the first case the issue is the form of the consent, in that the existence of a signed form may pose a risk. In these cases informed consent is still required but the paperwork should either protected with a Certificate of Confidentiality or the paperwork process could be waived by the IRB.

In the second case the subject's knowledge that they are participating in a study could substantially change their acts and therefore alter the outcome of the research. In these cases IRBs may waive the paperwork process though post-hoc paperwork should be obtained if possible.

References

Faden, Ruth R. and Beauchamp, Tom L. (1986). A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press.

Posted by prolurkr at February 18, 2004 10:04 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.professional-lurker.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/60