As a senior editor, my most painful moments are when an author states:
‘I gathered the data in _____, we did not need an institutional review for research ethics & standards for ethical conduct differ in my country.’
Note, I paraphrase.
Note, I do receive these types of statements.
Note, I receive the first statement from every continent except North America - even though these papers often involve American authors.
Typically, these projects involve one of three things.
First, data is gathered without participants’ informed consent or a steward for participants such as a workers council.
Second, the study involves possibly adverse impacts on non-consented participants, such as impacting healthcare, credit worthiness or emotional well-being, (e.g., matchmaking).
Third, a North American author, who needed IRB approval, claims to have been added after data were gathered.
Having served on an IRB, I get stuck on three basic issues.
First, every person should know how their data is used.
Informed consent is a fundamental in good science.
I don’t care where the data is gathered, violating informed consent requires a darn good scientific contribution, that outweighs the violation & that contribution better be more than profit.
Second, if informed consent is being ignored? And people are getting hurt? Why aren’t we all talking about it?
My guess is that those saying it is not necessary, have not actually talked to unwitting participants in those countries.
I once watched a study presented where they manipulated Internet access speed, resulting in adverse impacts on participants.
When I questioned the presenter, they fell back on the it’s ok in my country line.
I reject the moral relativism argument.
Why?
Because my bet is that the subjects, whose performance suffered, would not say it was ok.
Third, why do EU and US based journals continue to publish papers without evidence of informed consent? And the data transparency that requires?
It feels like these ‘top journals’ are looking the other way when it comes to this issue - and letting US and EU based scholars who know better - to also deny an ethical breach.
Why?
Bc top journals seem to be willing to exchange ethics for bleeding edge scholarship written by top scholars.
This is nonsense.
Published work should not violate ethical fundamentals.
What to do?
Associations and publishers need to create a clear rubric for what is ok & not ok - that complies with informed consent & GDPR.
We need de jure standards that absent informed consent, esp on work with adverse impact, the paper can’t be published.
Absent a clear outcome, nothing will improve.
Faculty have power, let’s push these institutional actors, to do the right thing & build a better academe.
Comments