The Facebook story suggests that computing researchers should consider possible connections between their research and human welfare. Computing research that goes regularly to the IRB will continue to go there. What about computing research that might now be declared exempt from IRB consideration, or at least be puzzling to IRB experts? It is difficult to pin down the moving “front” between the IRB’s established territory and where the IRB will be in the future. The IRB is not the only mechanism to consider, but public opinion has tended toward more strict control of research, and the IRB is often the most experienced source of guidance available. Computing researchers should watch the IRB and think proactively about important ethical issues.

Although going through IRB review can be a disincentive to writing and submitting proposals, the history of IRBs shows sensitivity to the needs of research. Many institutions have created separate IRBs to deal with biomedical research and behavioral research in recognition of important differences between those research domains. One protocol does not fit all research. In time there might be additional IRBs created. Computing researchers should be engaged at the beginning to forestall senseless regulation and promote ethical practice. The IRB has been at the forefront of ethical discussions regarding the researcher’s “duty of care” toward research subjects and others in the broad realm of “human welfare.” There is much to be learned from the IRB. Finally, the IRB mechanism is likely to persevere and grow in importance as the primary device for settling matters of research and human welfare, at least in Federally supported research. Computing researchers should become closer to the IRB, not to accelerate IRB control over computing research, but to understand IRB concerns and establish a sensible and sustainable trajectory for the future.

Open issues regarding human
welfare will not be settled using an
authoritarian approach. Computing
researchers in universities and com-
panies cannot do whatever they like.
Doctoral students and postdoctoral
fellows should be aware of science
and engineering ethics. Ethical con-
cerns must lead professional prac-
tice and regulation, not the other way
around. IRBs have not discovered all
the ethical issues that should be in
the foreground of research. For exam-
ple, there are major uncertainties re-
garding what constitutes “informed”
consent, many of them brought on by
advances in IT. 1 Technological capa-
bilities and social attitudes continue
to change. Uncertainties remain, and
learning to manage research involv-
ing human welfare is not a one-time
proposition. Many researchers who
assumed they would never be includ-
ed in IRB review now routinely take
their proposed work to the IRB. Com-
puting researchers have the opportu-
nity to develop ethical directions for
their work that exemplify humane
and responsible conduct. To do so re-
quires individual initiative and insti-
tutional support. This is not because
IRB control over computing research
is inevitable (it might not be), but be-
cause this is the right thing to do.

References

1. Barocas, S. and Nissenbaum, H. Big data’s end-run around procedural privacy protections. Commun. ACM 57, 11 (Nov. 2012), 31–33.

2. Childress, J. F., Meslin, E. M., and Shapiro, H. T., Eds. Belmont Revisited: Ethical Principles for Research with Human Subjects. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. (2005); http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/ humansubjects/commonrule/.

3. Kramer, A. D.L, Guillory, J.E., and Hancock, J. T. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 8 (June 17, 2014), 8788–8790.

4. Jones, J. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Free Press, New York, 1981; http://www. hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html.

5. Mantelero, A. The EU proposal for a general data protection regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten.’ Computer Law and Security Review 29, 3 (Mar. 2013), 229–235.

6. Marrus, M.R. The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial 1945–46: A Documentary History. St. Martin’s Press, Boston, 1997.

7. Nakashima, E. and Soltani, A. The ethics of hacking 101. Washington Post Live, (Oct. 7, 2014); http:// www.washingtonpost.com/postlive/the-ethics-of- hacking-101/2014/10/07/39529518-4014-11e4-b0ea- 8141703bbf6f_story.html.

8. National Institutes of Health. NIH, Lacks family reach understanding to share genomic data of HeLa cells; http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nih-07.htm.

9. Skloot, R. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Crown Publishers, New York, 2010.

10. Vollmer, S.H. and Howard, G. Satistical power, the Belmont Report, and the ethics of clinical trials. Science and Engineering Ethics (Dec. 2010), 675–691.

 

John Leslie King ( [e-mail]) is W. W. Bishop Professor in the School of Information at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Copyright held by author.

Calendar
of Events

March 2–4

Fifth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy, San Antonio, TX, Sponsored: SIGSAC, Contact: Jaehong Park, Email: [e-mail]

March 2–5

ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Portland, OR, Sponsored: SIGAI, SIGCHI, Contact: Julie A. Adams, Email: [e-mail]

March 4–7

The 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Kansas City, MO, Sponsored: SIGCSE, Contact: Kurt Eiselt, Email: [e-mail]

March 14–18

ASPLOS ’15: Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Istanbul, Turkey, Sponsored: ACM/SIG, Contact: Ozcan Ozturk, Email: [e-mail]

March 14–18

The 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Vancouver, BC, Sponsored: SIGCHI, Contact: Andrea Forte, Email: [e-mail]

March 18–20

Multimedia Systems Conference 2015, Portland, OR, Sponsored: SIGMM, SIGCOMM, SIGMOBILE, Contact: Wei Tsang Ooi, Email: [e-mail]

March 29–April 1

ISPD’15: International Symposium on Physical Design, Monterey, CA, Sponsored: ACM/SIG, Contact: Azadeh Davoodi, Email: [e-mail]