Mrs_Toona

[ QUOTE ]
I am acquainted with the Common Rule, and I don't think that Prof. Myers's final product was an exceptionally valuable piece of scholarship. However, I am still not convinced that an IRB would not have granted approval beforehand. Even where there are risks, they may be offset by the benefit of the research.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still say it doesn't meet the requirements for approval with the population stats, Informed consent requirment and the design. Also he is a communications professor i am not sure they would approve him to do a sociological experiment with human subjects. If i can find and IRB person I will ask heck maybe i will ask my regulatory law professor, he may know based on the legality issues..

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Credible researchers use knowing test subjects, subjects they can see what background they have and can monitor other influences that may result in that behavior, also in a closed lab setting it can be accurately monitored how many people are not noticeably affected by the stimulus. In this case that was not maintained ... all this research proved is if you push a random person one or more may lash out ... did that need proving to anyone? Now why was this unethical, many people in game have crappy lives, hard lives, stressful lives ... there are kids who may be frequently abused in game, other people who may rely on this outlet. Pushing these people is NOT SAFE!!! it is dangerous and in an attempt to prove an idiotic point this person put people at risk because he applied a stimulus where it could be harmful all because of ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, once again, point out that a researcher can get away with knowing diddly about a potential test subject as long as an Ethics Board approves the experiment prior to the start of the experiment. One of my profs used to tell a tale of an experiment that involved usurping a person's chair in a library. They'd effectively move someone else's stuff without prior knowledge of the person or their lives. Did it backfire? Yes. In one case the participant ran out of the library thinking their ex-husband was stalking her. Was it unethical? At the time no, it had been approved by an Ethics Board and the experiment was completely legit. Would it be okay to do that experiment today? I dunno, I'm not on an Ethics Board, but it might (and it might not).

Assuming TWIXT approached an Ethics Board before starting the experiment (and they approved the experiment) and assuming he stayed within the limits of what he presented to said Ethics Board TWIXT did nothing unethical. Yes, these are big assumptions, but they are not things that we can make judgment calls on (to my knowledge...if someone is a part of an Ethics Board somewhere I'd like to hear their thoughts) and must assume he did (otherwise we are making faulty claims as well).

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted most of this on the Justice board

Please note below the governmets guide lines for IRB approval there is a mention of both informed consent and privacy.

This is taken from Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 46.102

(f) Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains

(1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or
(2) Identifiable private information.

Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (for example, venipuncture) and manipulations of the subject or the subject's environment that are performed for research purposes. Interaction includes communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject. Private information includes information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, and information which has been provided for specific purposes by an individual and which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (for example, a medical record). Private information must be individually identifiable (i.e., the identity of the subject is or may readily be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information) in order for obtaining the information to constitute research involving human subjects.


From CFR 46.111 Criteria for IRB approval of research.

(a) In order to approve research covered by this policy the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) Risks to subjects are minimized: (i) By using procedures which are consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and (ii) whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes.

(2) Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (for example, the possible effects of the research on public policy) as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility.

(3) Selection of subjects is equitable. In making this assessment the IRB should take into account the purposes of the research and the setting in which the research will be conducted and should be particularly cognizant of the special problems of research involving vulnerable populations, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.

(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.116.

(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.117.

(6) When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.

(7) When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.



The use of Internet based research is currently a topic under review by the NIH and the AAS, due to the ethical implications and the perception of privacy(real or imagined). In regards to privacy every time I was working on an IRB approved human experiment the subjects were coded to keep their privacy protected.


http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenba..._wal_full.html

http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_m...5/p21435-1.php

http://www.ecscw.org/2005/paper15.pdf

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...2004-11287-003

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ql7770203m351763/

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol10_no1_pages_35-41.pdf



Also i asked him here about IRB and he kind of blew it off he also does declare this as not real research to quote him "I agree, this study is not really an experiment. I label it as a “breaching experiment” in reference to analogous methods of Garfinkel, but, in fact, neither his nor my methods are experimental in any truly scientific sense."

You need to see him partnered with 2 girls......

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you respond to the issue of ethics violations in Dr. Myers research. Permission is required from any test subject in a Scociology investigation, and no where in his paper does he mention seeking any form of permission( by individuals or by NCSoft). It is also possible that the people that were effected by Twixt's activities were minors, and without actualy conduction interviews, it would be inpossible to know. If Dr. Myers research is unethical, does it invalidate his conclutions?

Furthermore, under no circumstance are you allowed to harm or distress, (physically or psychologically) your research subjects, without their approval and impartial supervision. Dr. Myers had to understand that Twixt's activities would cause harm. Again, how does this effect his conclusion?

Dr. Myers was not an observer to the events that happened in his research. He was the instigator, and his impartiality is questionable. Therefore, his conclusions must also suspect.

As Ive said earlier in this thread, I believe that his research was sloppy and unethical. I think that there were better research opportunities that could have been explored. Opportunities that could have been far more interesting, and more approprate for a Doctoral level investigation.

Grizz

[/ QUOTE ]

While I won't disagree that his methods were sloppy I will point out, as it has already been stated in this thread, that permission is not needed under certain circumstances as long as an ethics board has approved the experiment. Did he get permission from an ethics board to run this experiment? I dunno, and I would certainly suspect the validity and adherence to whatever he did submit to them, but that doesn't mean he didn't have permission to run these experiments without the participants' consent.

As for NCSoft, I can see ToS conflicts throughout this. For example: why did he have to call out players by their names? Couldn't have have blocked out the names and/or replaced them with generic identifiers?

[/ QUOTE ]


From CFR 46.111 Criteria for IRB approval of research.

(a) In order to approve research covered by this policy the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) Risks to subjects are minimized: (i) By using procedures which are consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and (ii) whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes.

(2) Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (for example, the possible effects of the research on public policy) as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility.

(3) Selection of subjects is equitable. In making this assessment the IRB should take into account the purposes of the research and the setting in which the research will be conducted and should be particularly cognizant of the special problems of research involving vulnerable populations, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.

(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.116.

(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.117.

(6) When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.

(7) When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

Taken from space nut's post in city life for the sociologist perspective he quotes a section from :

STATEMENTS ON ETHICS

Principles of Professional Responsibility
Adopted by the Council of the American Anthropological Association

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm

[ QUOTE ]
In research, anthropologists' paramount responsibility is to those they study. When there is a conflict of interest, these individuals must come first. Anthropologists must do everything in their power to protect the physical, social, and psychological welfare and to honor the dignity and privacy of those studied.

a. Where research involves the acquisition of material and information transferred on the assumption of trust between persons, it is axiomatic that the rights, interests, and sensitivities of those studied must be safeguarded.

b. The aims of the investigation should be communicated as well as possible to the informant.

c. Informants have a right to remain anonymous. This right should be respected both where it has been promised explicitly and where no clear understanding to the contrary has been reached. These strictures apply to the collection of data by means of cameras, tape recorders, and other data-gathering devices, as well as to data collected in face-to-face interviews or in participant observation. Those being studied should understand the capacities of such devices; they should be free to reject them if they wish; and if they accept them, the results obtained should be consonant with the informant's right to welfare, dignity and privacy.

(1) Despite every effort being made to preserve anonymity, it should be made clear to informants that such anonymity may be compromised unintentionally.

(2) When professionals or others have used pseudonyms to maintain anonymity, others should respect this decision and the reasons for it by not revealing indiscriminately the true identity of such committees, persons or other data.

d. There should be no exploitation of individual informants for personal gain. Fair return should be given them for all services.

e. There is an obligation to reflect on the foreseeable repercussions of research and publication on the general population being studied.

f. The anticipated consequences of research should be communicated as fully as possible to the individuals and groups likely to be affected.

g. In accordance with the Association's general position on clandestine and secret research, no reports should be provided to sponsors that are not also available to the general public and, where practicable, to the population studied.

h. Every effort should be exerted to cooperate with members of the host society in the planning and execution of research projects.

i. All of the above points should be acted upon in full recognition of the social and cultural pluralism of host societies and the consequent plurality of values, interests and demands in those societies. This diversity complicates choice making in research, but ignoring it leads to irresponsible decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]


The priciple of the protection of the human subject is similar to the CFR i sited earlier.

It's about the ethics to me, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Risk vs reward ratio look at the other criteria. He would have to have informed consent from all the "test subjects" , then and this was quite possible if any of the subjects were minors he would need informed consent from the parent. The whole fact that he verbally "baited" people and/or irritated them brings up the "harm" issue for the IRB board.

Then there is the experimental design and population he choose which is a very limited and unknown sample.

I am not sure how Informed Consent is done for the social sciences but for biological/medical research it is needed prior to the experiment start.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The lesson here is simple Bridge:

PvP = serious business



[/ QUOTE ]
Or as someone (I believe it was Mac) said last night: When you're a jerk to them, people get angry.

[/ QUOTE ]Good thing we have professors to tell us that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Education is vunderbar!


...or were you saying Macskull's a professor?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about an IRB approval, informed consent and a known population for starters. Then maybe it would actually qualify as research......

[/ QUOTE ]

Anonymous sociological research precludes the need for consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of Internet based research is currently a topic under review by the NIH and the AAS, due to the ethical implications and the perception of privacy(real or imagined). In regards to privacy every time I was working on an IRB approved human experiment the subjects were coded to keep their privacy protected.


http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenba..._wal_full.html

http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_m...5/p21435-1.php

http://www.ecscw.org/2005/paper15.pdf

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...2004-11287-003

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ql7770203m351763/

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol10_no1_pages_35-41.pdf


This is taken from Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 46.102

(f) Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains

(1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or
(2) Identifiable private information.

Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (for example, venipuncture) and manipulations of the subject or the subject's environment that are performed for research purposes. Interaction includes communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject. Private information includes information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, and information which has been provided for specific purposes by an individual and which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (for example, a medical record). Private information must be individually identifiable (i.e., the identity of the subject is or may readily be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information) in order for obtaining the information to constitute research involving human subjects.


From CFR 46.111 Criteria for IRB approval of research.

(a) In order to approve research covered by this policy the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(1) Risks to subjects are minimized: (i) By using procedures which are consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and (ii) whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes.

(2) Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (for example, the possible effects of the research on public policy) as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility.

(3) Selection of subjects is equitable. In making this assessment the IRB should take into account the purposes of the research and the setting in which the research will be conducted and should be particularly cognizant of the special problems of research involving vulnerable populations, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons.

(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.116.

(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented, in accordance with, and to the extent required by §46.117.

(6) When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.

(7) When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.

He never would have gotten IRB approval.

I like the opening statement from the first link "The widespread use of the Internet provides new vantage points from which to observe conventional behavior, views of new kinds of behavior, and new tools with which to observe it all. Accompanying these opportunities come two specific concerns about research approaches: how new research methods using the Internet may or may not affect the ethical protections to which human subjects are entitled, and the validity of data collected using the Internet. In some cases, these issues converge: Presuming that research must hold promise of advancing knowledge in order to justify any intrusion on human subjects, Dr. Jeffrey Cohen of the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) former Office for Protection from Research Risks is quoted as saying, "Research that is invalid has no benefit…(a)nd if there’s no benefit at all, any inconvenience to subjects isn’t worth it" (Azar, 2000, p. 51). "

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is fair that everyone is bashing this researcher simply because there was a news article posted about what he was doing. No one knows exactly what, when, how, and why he was doing any of this... What everyone is reading is just a small news article outlining that someone was doing research within a video game that was written by someone else, not the researcher himself, and therefore doesn't contain all the information that he may have been researching - Who knows, maybe he has already gone into other games and this news article just happened to focus on his small experience on City of Heroes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read his essay it really can't be called a paper i am bashing his ethics and experimental design.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The lesson here is simple Bridge:

PvP = serious business



[/ QUOTE ]
Or as someone (I believe it was Mac) said last night: When you're a jerk to them, people get angry.

[/ QUOTE ]Good thing we have professors to tell us that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Education is vunderbar!


...or were you saying Macskull's a professor?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about an IRB approval, informed consent and a known population for starters. Then maybe it would actually qualify as research......

He didn't take his "research" to an IRB board I asked him and he dismissed me. I also brought up the fact that he used an unknown population which possibly had minors in it which hold a special set of ethics rules.....guess what he dismissed that too.

I have said this before in threads about him. He did an extremely poorly designed experiment with a unknown population that is too small of a sample. He had no IRB review or approval and no informed consent. His work was unethical and worthless. I won't even get into the points on ethics of human test subjects in regards to minors which some of his population was most likely.

[ QUOTE ]
web page

This is his post/blog about his last day with CoH. He goes back and does the exact samething, then wonders why he gets the responce.

EDIT: Wow. I was reading the replies from his site and a woman was discussing the matter with him and making valid points. He was responding and answering her questions respectfully, but once he found out that she was "just a player" and not someone at a 'his' level he just blew her off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ty That's me and while I am not familiar with sociology I actually have several papers in well known peer reviewed Scientific Journals like the Journal of Neuroscience, and the Journal of Experimental Neurology, so I know how to conduct a controlled experiment. His lack of ethics still astounds me, I can't imagine any sociology journal publishing any work of his and he dismissed me when I brought up ethics and IRB review boards lol.

As Iggy walks down the street he is thinking, maybe i should have only clicked the shoes 3 times like Pum said 4 times was just too many. But wtf did Cho give me this outfit for it didn't do anything.



Oh and wb Toona

Harry Potter comes out in 2 weeks >.>

ur suffering through it with me............

That's all i have to say

[ QUOTE ]
pum's avatar is actually scarier than mine.

re: tournament-- im hopeful that ppl who dont normally pvp will stop by and take part. teh whole idea here is to have fun. this is why im not announcin teh events til gametime. if nothin else, im planning on giving away a lot of stuff.

i think i had more to say but pum has emotionally scarred me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually Toona's fault err i mean Generic_Poster_01. I made Pum the blue one cause that's my favorite color

*hugs*

Bottom of the page, left hand side, drop down menu that says "choose rating"

I think Umbral is currently your only rep you could PM him or put a request in via the PERC website here

http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.asp...ageName=Forums

Or you could ask the PvPEC via their website

http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.asp...;TabID=1463928

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*hooks up the webcam*

And how much is that worth?

And you already know i will be there, i am the main cause of drunkinness and since i will be playing someone elses toon bring extra booze i expect to die more than usual!

[/ QUOTE ]

if i can watch and listen you can play my toon philly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone hawter beat you to it Galactic i already have an account to use

*hooks up the webcam*

And how much is that worth?

And you already know i will be there, i am the main cause of drunkinness and since i will be playing someone elses toon bring extra booze i expect to die more than usual!

[ QUOTE ]
Ginger vs. MaryAnne.

Wearing bikinis.

In a giant tub of Jello-O.

Wait, were we talking about wrestling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't it be mud or where you going to help them clean the Jello off after the match?

OMG Meg! I miss u!

PumBumbler User Cohort 06/23/09 06:56 PM Reading a post in flat mode
(Private)


He is so not fair

I don't have to stalk you PSL your easy

I only stalk the hawtness that is Pum........