Abstract
This chapter starts with explaining the differences between research on humans and research on physical objects. Next, criteria for formulating a hypothesis are presented, and an elaboration on ethics of human subject research is provided, including the importance of informed consent and a reflection on ethically challenging procedures. The ethical implications of big data research are also explained. Finally, we devote a section to biosafety and biosecurity, because next to human subject research, engineers may also need to work with cell cultures, human tissues, or animal tissues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alon, U. (2009). How to choose a good scientific problem. Molecular Cell, 35, 726–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2009.09.013
American Psychological Association. (2007). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Association. (2010a). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Association. (2010b). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524
Brooks, J. O., Goodenough, R. R., Crisler, M. C., Klein, N. D., Alley, R. L., Koon, B. L., et al. (2010). Simulator sickness during driving simulation studies. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 788–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.04.013
Chambers, C. (2014, July 1). Facebook fiasco: Was Cornell’s study of ‘emotional contagion’ an ethics breach? https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/jul/01/facebook-cornell-study-emotional-contagion-ethics-breach
De Winter, J. C. F., Zadpoor, A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of google scholar versus web of science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98, 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2
Einstein, A. (1934). On the method of theoretical physics. Philosophy of Science, 1, 163–169.
ERINHA. (2016). Final report summary—ERINHA (European Research Infrastructure on Highly Pathogenic Agents). http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/164329_en.html
Gehanno, J. F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-7
Goodman, B. (2016). What’s wrong with the right to genetic privacy: Beyond exceptionalism, parochialism and adventitious ethics. In B. D. Mittelstadt & L. Floridi (Eds.), The ethics of biomedical big data (pp. 139–167). Springer International Publishing.
Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 391–414. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000049239.15922.a3
Haig, B. D. (2014). Investigating the psychological world: Scientific method in the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Hand, D. J. (2004). Measurement: Theory and practice. London: Arnold.
Harding, S. G. (Ed.). (1976). Can theories be refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine thesis. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior, 18, 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701712990
Hoffman, R. R., & Hancock, P. A. (2014). Words matter. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Bulletin, 57, 3–7.
John Hopkins Medicine. (2005). Investigators as study participants (self-experimentation). http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institutional_review_board/guidelines_policies/guidelines/self_experimentation.html
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
Kimmel, A. J., Smith, N. C., & Klein, J. G. (2011). Ethical decision making and research deception in the behavioral sciences: an application of social contract theory. Ethics & Behavior, 21, 222–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.570166
Koepsell, D., Brinkman, W. P., & Pont, S. (2014). Human participants in engineering research: Notes from a fledgling Ethics Committee. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9568-2
Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8788–8790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 1–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.
Miller, F. G., Wendler, D., & Swartzman, L. C. (2005). Deception in research on the placebo effect. PLOS Medicine, 2. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020262
Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., MartÃn-MartÃn, A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2015). Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 104, 931–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6
Pitt, M. A., & Myung, I. J. (2002). When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 421–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01964-2
PLOS ONE. (2016). Submission guidelines. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson & Co (Reprinted by Routledge, 2002).
Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S. & Lash, T. L. (Eds.). (2008). Modern epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Ritchie, S. J., Wiseman, R., & French, C. C. (2012). Failing the future: Three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘Retroactive Facilitation of Recall’ effect. PLOS ONE, e33423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033423
Roberts, S. (2004). Self-experimentation as a source of new ideas: Ten examples about sleep, mood, health, and weight. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 227–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000068
Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107, 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.358
Schneider, C. E. (2015). The Censor’s hand: The misregulation of human-subject research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sieber, J. E., Iannuzzo, R., & Rodriguez, B. (1995). Deception methods in psychology: Have they changed in 23 years? Ethics & Behavior, 5, 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0501_5
Sokal, A. D., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Intellectual impostures. London: Profile Books.
Steinicke, F., & Bruder, G. (2014). A self-experimentation report about long-term use of fully-immersive technology. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM symposium on Spatial user interaction (pp. 66–69). https://doi.org/10.1145/2659766.2659767
Sullivan, G. (2014, July 1). Cornell ethics board did not pre-approve Facebook mood manipulation study. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/01/facebooks-emotional-manipulation-study-was-even-worse-than-you-thought/
Reuters, T. (2016). Derwent Innovations Index. http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/scholarly-scientific-research/scholarly-search-and-discovery/derwent-innovations-index.html
Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., Kievit, R. A., & Van der Maas, H. L. (2015). A skeptical eye on psi. In E. C. May & S. B. Marwaha (Eds.), Extrasensory perception: Support, skepticism, and science (Volume I) (pp. 153–176). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO LLC.
Watson, R. W. G., Kay, E. W., & Smith, D. (2010). Integrating biobanks: Addressing the practical and ethical issues to deliver a valuable tool for cancer research. Nature Reviews Cancer, 10, 646–651. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2913
Weisse, A. B. (2012). Self-experimentation and its role in medical research. Texas Heart Institute Journal, 39.
Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Richard courant lecture in mathematical sciences delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160130102
World Health Organization. (2004). Laboratory biosafety manual (3rd ed.). Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2016). Informed consent form templates. http://www.who.int/rpc/research_ethics/informed_consent/en/
World Medical Association. (2013). WMA declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Winter, J.C.F., Dodou, D. (2017). Scientific Method, Human Research Ethics, and Biosafety/Biosecurity. In: Human Subject Research for Engineers . SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56964-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56964-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56963-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56964-2
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)