Evidence-based ethical problem solving to guide practise in psychology research

Abstract

Looking back to the World War II activities, undertaken in the name of research, there is little room for doubt as to why we have Ethics Committees (ECs; or Institutional Review Boards, IRBs, as they are referred to in the U.S.) and various ethical codes of conduct. On one hand, no contemporary scientist would deny the need for a peer review process to ensure ethical treatment and protection of human research subjects, especially in psychology research. On the other hand, anecdotal evidence of ECs becoming an impediment to scientists and their research is mounting up (Ceci & Bruck, 2009; Fiske, 2009; Sieber, 2009; Tully, Ninis, Booy, & Viner, 2000); albeit empirical data on the issue is lacking (Ceci & Bruck, 2009; Fiske, 2009). There appears, however, to be a general sense in the academic world that this impediment sometimes arises as a result of EC members' lack of awareness or understanding of the particular research topic under review and its associated literature and methodologies, including what may constitute contemporary best practise in the area. This may then give rise to competing ethical concerns, between EC members and their department colleagues. Members of psychology ECs are not, and could not possibly be, experts on all psychological topics and methodologies.