In planning a study, the investigator has the responsibility to make a careful evaluation of its ethical acceptability. To the extent that the weighing of scientific and human values suggests a compromise of any principle, the investigator incurs a correspondingly serious obligation to seek ethical advice and to observe stringent safeguards to protect the rights of human participants. (APA, 1982, p. 5)
Before actually conducting an experiment with human participants, investigators are typically required to submit research proposals to a review board that judges the supporting institution's moral and legal responsibility to those participants. Principle A goes one step further; it considers "voluntary" and "self-initiated" consultation that takes into account the bias of the investigator. The bias, conscious or not, would probably be in favor of exaggerating the benefits of the proposed research and underestimating the costs to research participants. Why? The investigator may have a lot to gain should the proposed research be approved and go ahead as planned. For example, eventual publication of the findings may result in tenure, an increased likelihood of additional funding for future proposals, and improved status in the scientific community. Furthermore, the investigator may possess traits (e.g., age, gender, wealth, intellectual orientation) that may blind him or her to issues of concern for participants who do not share these traits.
The extent to which an investigator engages ethical consultation should be directly related to demands and potential risks for participants (many of which are elaborated in the other principles). The investigator should look for input from persons with different perspectives, including colleagues, the general public, and the specific population from which the research participants are drawn (e.g., college students).
Investigators often confer with colleagues concerning matters such as research design and data analysis. Note that these consultations involve scientific, and not ethical, matters, and thus are tangential to the present discussion.
Sally is concerned about how the young children in her study could react to the stranger during the Generalization Probe. Might some children become scared and inconsolable? Worse yet, could there be a lasting negative emotional effect, such as a generalized fear of all strangers? Despite obtaining approval from the Ethics Review Board at her university, Sally decides to pursue this matter further and have informal meetings with each of her friends in the Psychology Department who is the parent of a young child. Some of them predict that being approached by a stranger like that would panic their child, while others predict that it would not. However, they all seem to agree that they would be willing to risk a frightful situation, and even a fear of all strangers in general, in order to equip their child with skills that could possibly prevent an abduction. This coincides with Sally's belief about her own young child. She decides to conduct the study.
Sally is concerned about how the young children in her study could react to the stranger during the Generalization Probe. Might some children become scared and inconsolable? Worse yet, could there be a lasting negative emotional effect, such as a generalized fear of all strangers? Despite obtaining approval from the Ethics Committee at her university, Sally decides to pursue this matter further and have informal meetings with each of her colleagues in the Psychology Department who is the parent of a young child. Some of them predict that being approached by a stranger like that would panic their child, while others predict that it would not. However, they all seem to agree that they would be willing to risk a frightful situation, and even a fear of all strangers in general, in order to equip their child with skills that could possibly prevent an abduction. This coincides with Sally's belief about her own young child. Still unsure, Sally holds informal meetings with colleagues in other departments at her university. She also meets with the teachers of young children at local schools, and talks with dozens of the parents. Unlike her colleagues in the Psychology Department, there is no consensus as to whether the hazard of a frightful experience with a stranger would justify the benefits for a young child. Sally decides that a revision of the research is in order before proceeding.
As noted in the discussion above, the investigator should look for input from persons with different perspectives, including colleagues, the general public, and the specific population from which the research participants are drawn. In the first item, Sally consults with only friends who are only psychologists. Their interests and perspectives are very likely similar to hers. For example, as "friends" they want to see her succeed, and as "psychologists" they are probably eager to see important advances in their field that could benefit society. As such, whether intentional or not, they may be biased in favor of overestimating the benefits and underestimating the risks of her research. The second item is considerably less problematic in this regard, as Sally solicits advice from persons with a variety of perspectives, including persons most likely to have best interests of the subject population at heart, i.e., the parents and teachers. Sally might even go as far as to poll some of the young students themselves as to what they think about the procedure (see the discussion of "assumed consent" under Principle E).