Ethics

Good afternoon friends and readers.

Have you ever had a discussion about ethics? Specifically your ethics, and the ethics of whoever happens to be in close proximity to you at the time of the discussing. I'm sure that you have, and if not, perhaps you should, you learn a lot about both yourself and other people when discussing your (and consequently their) ethics.

I had an ethics conversation in one of my courses today. Let me just say this: I've had plenty of prior discussions regarding my ethics in the past, have even taken an ethics course in my undergraduate years, and haven't had a problem with it. Today's conversation; however, was different. Something I've learned over the past few years is that my set of ethics doesn't exactly flow with what everyone else seems to think and feel.

As a psychologist-to-be, I've been taught how to conduct research properly - what to look for, what to ask, how to address that question and phenomenon, etc. However, our ethics, and the ethics of the "powers that be" which governs what I do (in my case it's the APA, my University, and my professors) will obviously limit what we can do. Generally speaking, this is thought to be a good thing, however, I beg to differ.

Obviously there are times when research goes too far (for clear examples, look up the Nazi Medical Experiments conducted throughout the Holocaust and WWII). However, I feel as though there are times where there are harms and dangers that may happen to participants of research. This isn't always a bad thing, at least not to me. Naturally, we don't want to go around harming people if we can help it, but there are times, I believe, where such attempts are both unnecessary and actually hinder one's research. Please note that in saying such things I don't necessarily condone violence between persons, not in the least. My point is that I think society is overly protective of its own, so much so that we miss out on opportunities to learn more about ourselves and advance the fields in which we work.

Does this go with the flow? Hardly. Does that mean that I'm wrong? Well, I, of course, would say no. Does it mean that I'm right? Decidedly not, as most colleagues and "powers that be" are quick to point out to me - we are ALWAYS to keep the best interests of humanity in mind (though it would appear that the only "best interests" that we should concern ourselves with are those of the immediate type, never mind any potential benefits that might arise in the long-term). I don't mean to be overly critical; the APA, my University, and my Professors do, for the most part, allow all manner of research to proceed; however, there would be, at least in my opinion, much more research that would and could be done should we look at things from a different standpoint.

Furthermore, it seems to me that such banned research is actually socially reinforced! Not directly, of course, but in a roundabout way I believe that I'm correct. Think about it - no research is ever completely discarded; even if nothing is found the study can still be references, for replication or to show how not to do things, but it is used nonetheless. I feel as though this banned research is of no exception. Have we learned nothing from any of the studies of yesteryear that could not be conducted presently? Of course we have, so we disagree with how certain research is conducted, why it was conducted, and everything related to that research, but we'll still use the results, at least in some manner. Sure, a few practitioners might go to jail, pay a fine, or meet some other ill-regarded consequence, but in the end, it might be worth it.

Alright, I'm done rambling - for now. I'm sure that more will follow at a later date, but for now, you've had a glimpse into my ethical standpoint as it relates to research. I'll never say that you should believe what I do, but I will ask that you at least consider it before saying that my thoughts are detrimental to society and that I shouldn't be allowed to conduct research.

Thanks for stopping by! Until next time,

J