CMU/Ethics thing

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

I have abstracted the begnning and end out of a facinating
document on the ethical issues raised my the CMU/Rimm
affair. I thought the full article might be a bit much for
IP. This whole matter raises very interesting questions as
more and more computer scientists slip into the world of
networking and start having to face the human/ethical
issues that field presents.


Dave


ps, if you want the whole article let me know




From: Jim Thomas (tk0jut1 () mvs cso niu edu)  <TK0JUT1 () MVS CSO NIU EDU>




                            Jim Thomas
                      Department of Sociology
                   Northern Illinois University


It's unfortunate that there are some researchers, even prestigious
ones, who fail to recognize that the same ethical principles that
apply to off-line research apply on-line as well. Conventions that
prohibit deception, invasion of privacy, placing human subjects at
risk, and possible fraudulent data gathering are not considered a
normal part of research. It is especially sad when a research study
carrying the name of a prestigious national university errs so
egregiously as occured in the Carnegie Mellon study of "Net
pornography."


The Carnegie Mellon study was published in the Georgetown Law
Journal (Vol. 83, 1995: pp 1839-1934) and featured as the cover
story of Time Magazine (Jun 3, 1995; See CuD 7.56). The primary
focus of the study was an analysis of the text descriptions from
adult BBSes specializing in erotica, and a secondary focus was on
Usenet erotica files from the alt.binaries hierarchy. The
intellectual substance of the study has been convincingly
discredited (see the Hoffman/Novak critique at
http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu). However, the ethics of the
study have not yet fully been addressed. Because of the
implications of the ethical violations for cyberspace, and because
the violations occured in the name of Carnegie Mellon University
(CMU), the implications cannot go unaddressed.


[ deleted for compactness djf]


                              SUMMARY


The broad principles and explicit guidelines that alert human
subjects researchers to potential ethical problems are intended to
1) protect subjects from risk, 2) minimize potential harm resulting
from exposure to research methods or results, 3) assure the subjects
are fully informed that research is occurring, 4) assure that data
is collected in a manner consistent with privacy tenets, and 5)
assure that deception or fraud in research do not occur.  The
Carnegie Mellon study demonstrably violated each of these tenets.


Some might argue that the principle investigator bears the
responsibility for the ethical lapses. Perhaps. But, as the NIU
guidelines--which are standard among research
universities--indicate, the faculty advisor and oversight committees
within an institution's administration are ultimately responsible.
It is the principle faculty advisor who bears the immediate
responsibility for socializing and mentoring the student into the
world of empirical research, and this socialization includes
imparting ethical precepts.


Because the research was funded with four Carnegie Mellon Small
Undergraduate Research Grants (SURG) (GLJ, p. 1849), those who
reviewed grant proposals are also responsible for the ethical
failures of the study.  If the CMU human subjects review board read
the proposals and did not respond negatively to the deceptive
methodology (which would presumably be specified in the proposals),
they, too must accept responsibility for the deception.  If, as the
principal investigator's comments suggest, subjects were defrauded
into participating by being deceived into believing that they were
receiving marketing consultation rather than being the subjects of a
covert study that would put them and their users at potential risk,
then perhaps the human subjects' review committee should re-read
Federal and other documents or, better, take a refresher course in
basic ethics.


In the end, however, Carnegie Mellon University must accept the
ultimate responsibility for their unethical behavior.  This is,
after all, the CARNEGIE MELLON study: It has been so-labeled in the
GLJ article; It is so-labeled by the media; It is so-labeled by
Congressional observers; It is so-labeled by the commentators of the
study in the GLJ review who respond to the study; and, above all, it
is so-labeled by Carnegie Mellon University itself. When asked
point-blank if this is a Carnegie Mellon study conducted under the
auspices of Carnegie Mellon, and a study to which Carnegie Mellon
gives its name, a spokesperson in the public relations office said,
"Yes." She then indicated as evidence the list of nearly two dozen
CMU and other personnel, including professors, deans, and
administrators, who participated.


There seems to be a rather long list of people on the Carnegie
Mellon research team who might have benefited from familiarization
with social science ethics.  On the other hand, if Carnegie Mellon
condones such ethical lapses, then the debates following Laud
Humphries' research were over nothing. But, I doubt if any serious
social scientists would accept that.


--------------------


Jim Thomas is a professor of sociology/criminal justice at
Northern Illinois University. He is also co-editor of Cu Digest.
Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~jthomas