Skip to main content

Using Drones to Study Human Beings: Ethical and Regulatory Issues

Abstract

Researchers have used drones to track wildlife populations, monitor forest fires, map glaciers, and measure air pollution but have only begun to consider how to use these unmanned aerial vehicles to study human beings. The potential use of drones to study public gatherings or other human activities raises novel issues of privacy, confidentiality, and consent, which this article explores in depth. It argues that drone research could fall into several different categories: non-human subjects research (HSR), exempt HSR, or non-exempt HSR. In the case of non-exempt HSR, it will be difficult for institutional review boards to approve studies unless they are designed so that informed consent can be waived. Whether drone research is non-HSR, exempt HSR, or non-exempt HSR, it is important for investigators to consult communities which could be affected by the research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Privacy is a broader concept than confidentiality. Privacy includes the right to be protected from unwanted invasions of one’s body, private space, or private information. Confidentiality refers to the protection of private information (Hodge and Gostin 2008).

  2. 2.

    We note that the Common Rule revisions do not change the definition of private information (Department of Homeland Security et al. 2017 at 45 CFR 46.102e).

  3. 3.

    It is worth noting that this logical inconsistency is not unique to drone research but occurs whenever one applies the Common Rule to observations of public behavior.

  4. 4.

    It is worth noting that drone research raises some issues beyond the scope of this paper. For example, an authoritarian government might use drone research to gather information to stop or disrupt peaceful demonstrations. However, such a government would probably not be concerned about protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects in any case.

References

  1. Anderson, K., & Gaston, K. J. (2013). Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 138–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Birtchnell, T., & Gibson, C. (2015). Less talk more drone: social research with UAVs. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 39(1), 182–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. California v. Ciraolo. (1986). 476 U.S. 207.

  4. Cavoukian, A. (2012). Privacy and drones: Unmanned aerial vehicles. Information & Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada, August 2012. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn29822-eng.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2017.

  5. Childress, J. F., Faden, R. R., Gaare, R. D., Gostin, L. O., Kahn, J., Bonnie, R. J., et al. (2002). Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30(2), 170–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). HHS and 15 other federal departments and agencies announce an Interim Final Rule that delays both the effective date and general compliance date of the revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects to July 19, 2018. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/interim-final-rule-common-rule.html. Accessed February 7, 2018.

  7. Department of Homeland Security; Department of Agriculture; Department of Energy; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Department of Commerce; Social Security Administration; Agency for International Development; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Department of Labor; Department of Defense; Department of Education; Department of Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Health and Human Services; National Science Foundation; and Department of Transportation. (2017). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Federal Register, 82(12), 7149–7274.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dickert, N. W., & Sugarman, J. (2005). Ethical goals of community consultation in research. American Journal of Public Health, 95(7), 1123–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(20), 2701–2711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Finn, R. L., & Wright, D. (2012). Unmanned aircraft systems: Surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Computer Law & Security Review, 28, 184–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hodge, J. G., & Gostin, L. O. (2008). Confidentiality. In E. J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R. A. Crouch, R. K. Lie, F. G. Miller, & D. Wendler (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 673–681). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Koh, L. P., & Wich, S. A. (2012). Dawn of drone ecology: Low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Tropics in Conservation Science., 5, 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kyllo v. United States. (2001). 533 U.S. 27.

  14. Marris, E. (2013). Drones in science: Fly, and bring me data. Nature, 498(7453), 156–158.

    Google Scholar 

  15. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical or Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Paneque-Gálvez, J., McCall, M. K., Napoletano, B. M., Wich, S. A., & Koh, L. P. (2014). Small drones for community-based forest monitoring: An assessment of their feasibility and potential in tropical areas. Forests, 5, 1481–1507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pogue, D. (2015). Civilian drones on unclear course. Scientific American, 312(4), 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Research Triangle Institute. (2015). RTI International, North Carolina State University collaborate on using drones for social science research. February 15, 2015. https://www.rti.org/news/rti-international-north-carolina-state-university-collaborate-using-drones-social-science. Accessed November 28, 2017.

  19. Resnik, D. (2018). Ethics of research with human subjects: Protecting people, advancing science, promoting trust. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Schiffman, R. (2014). Drones flying high as new tool for field biologists. Science, 344(6183), 459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Senior, A. W., & Pankanti, S. (2011). Privacy protection and face recognition. In S. Z. Li & A. K. Jain (Eds.), Handbook of face recognition (2nd ed., pp. 671–691). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Stanley, J., & Crump, C. (2011). Protecting privacy from aerial surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft, Report for the American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2017.

  23. Strawser, B. J. (2013). Killing by remote control: The ethics of an unmanned military. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Whyte, K. P. (2015). What do indigenous knowledges do for Indigenous peoples? In M. K. Nelson & D. Schilling (Eds.), Keepers of the Green World: Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wolf, S. M., Lawrenz, F. P., Nelson, C. A., Kahn, J. P., Cho, M. K., Clayton, E. W., et al. (2008). Managing incidental findings in human subjects research. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 36, 219–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported, in part, by the Intramural Program of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). It does not represent the views of the NIEHS, NIH, or U.S. government.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Resnik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Resnik, D.B., Elliott, K.C. Using Drones to Study Human Beings: Ethical and Regulatory Issues. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 707–718 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0032-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Drones
  • Research
  • Privacy
  • Confidentiality
  • Consent
  • Ethics
  • Regulation