1

RESEARCH ETHICS

Research Ethics

Name

Institution

Course

Tutor

Date
 2
RESEARCH ETHICS

Research exemptions by Azusa Pacific University

APU exempts researches, mostly theses, which involve low-risk research carried on non-

vulnerable people that would later be used in a public publication or presentation. It also exempts

low-risk research on vulnerable people in cases where the people conducting the research do not

have a history of interaction with the vulnerable populations' members (Stibbs, 2009). This is

simply because APU, as a Christian institution, strives to uphold the highest levels of ethical

standards to glorify God and appropriately serve humanity.

The difference between an expedited and full review

Expedited: The operation may be reviewed by one or more appointed IRB members

under expedited review, but convened board review is not necessary. To be eligible for expedited

approval, the study must pose only a minor risk to human subjects. It also utilizes non-invasive

procedures for clinical actions, excluding such procedures that involve the use of microwaves

and x- rays. The expedited review also must fall within one of the regulatory categories of

activities that are eligible for expedited review. It may also not be utilized in classified research

that involves human subjects.

On the other hand, a full review study is based on IRB reviews scheduled at a conference.

In full review, there is the involvement of all research protocols involving more than minimal

risks, such as invasive procedures, investigational drugs, and equipment, multiple blood sample

collection, or research involving vulnerable populations, such as subjects under the age of 18,

pregnant subjects, or special groups of at-risk populations. They all must go through a full IRB

examination. A project only goes through a full review if it cannot qualify for the expedited

review or exempt status. However, if the expedited reviews are not authorized, the full board will
 3
RESEARCH ETHICS

make the final decision. Besides, any protocol that the expedited approval process has accepted

may be subjected to a full board review by the IRB.

I agree with the distinction because each procedure follows specific and distinct

guidelines while administering its roles.

Deceptive or Incomplete disclosure

When researchers purposefully deceive study subjects by presenting false information or

misdirecting them in any way about any aspect of the research procedure or intent, this is known

as deception. On the other hand, when researchers withhold knowledge about certain aspects of

the study from the participants, it is referred to as incomplete disclosure(Levine, 1982). In some

cases, researchers can notify the study's general-purpose subjects but not enough information to

disclose the entire purpose.

Deception and incomplete disclosure are necessary testing methods because they help in

the avoidance of demand effects and response bias in subjects, particularly in social and

behavioral research. However, the IRB is concerned about these strategies because they obstruct

the subject's ability to make an informed decision about whether or not to engage in the study.

As a result, any planned research involving incomplete disclosure deception should be

thoroughly reviewed by the IRB, including whether there is a reasonable reason for using such

strategies and whether the approval and debriefing process is sufficient and acceptable.
 4
RESEARCH ETHICS

References

Levine, R. J. (1982). Consent to Incomplete Disclosure as an Alternative to Deception. IRB:

Ethics and Human Research, 4(10), 9.

Stibbs, T. (2009). Principled Ethics Review: Governance Arrangements for University Research

Ethics Committees. Research Ethics, 5(3), 110–112.