David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2):115-118 (2013)
The recent success of Foldit in determining the structure of the Mason-Pfizer monkey virus (M-PMV) retroviral protease is suggestive of the power-solving potential of internet-facilitated game-like crowdsourcing. This research model is highly novel, however, and thus, deserves careful consideration of potential ethical issues. In this paper, we will demonstrate that the crowdsourcing model of research has the potential to cause harm to participants, manipulates the participant into continued participation, and uses participants as experimental subjects. We conclude that protocols relying on this model require institutional review board (IRB) scrutiny
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Emily E. Anderson & James M. DuBois (2012). IRB Decision-Making with Imperfect Knowledge: A Framework for Evidence-Based Research Ethics Review. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):951-969.
Michael Owen (2006). Conflict and Convergence: The Ethics Review of Action Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 4 (1-4):61-75.
Doug Brugge & Mariam Missaghian (2006). Protecting the Navajo People Through Tribal Regulation of Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):491-507.
Diane K. Wagener, Amy K. Sporer, Mary Simmerling, Jennifer L. Flome, Christina An & Susan J. Curry (2004). Human Participants Challenges in Youth-Focused Research: Perspectives and Practices of IRB Administrators. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):335 – 349.
Mahesh Ananth & Mike Scheessele (2012). Exempting All Minimal-Risk Research From IRB Review: Pruning or Poisoning the Regulatory Tree? IRB: Ethics & Human Research 34 (2):9-14.
David Perlman (2012). Rethinking Local Institutional Review Board (IRB) Review at State Health Departments: Implications for a Consolidated, Independent Public Health IRB. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):997-1007.
Dennis John Mazur (2007). Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for Irb Members. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mark Risjord & Judith Greenberg (2002). When IRBs Disagree: A Case Study on Waiving Parental Consent for Sexual Health Research on Adolescents. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 24 (2):8-14.
Cheryl Cox Macpherson (1999). Research Ethics Committees: A Regional Approach. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (2):161-179.
Elizabeth H. Bassett & Kate O'Riordan (2002). Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the Human Subjects Research Model. Ethics and Information Technology 4 (3):233-247.
Kathleen R. Diviak, Susan J. Curry, Sherry L. Emery & Robin J. Mermelstein (2004). Human Participants Challenges in Youth Tobacco Cessation Research: Researchers' Perspectives. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):321 – 334.
Daryl Pullman (2002). Conflicting Interests, Social Justice and Proxy Consent to Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):523 – 545.
Craig A. Childress & Joy K. Asamen (1998). The Emerging Relationship of Psychology and the Internet: Proposed Guidelines for Conducting Internet Intervention Research. Ethics and Behavior 8 (1):19 – 35.
Michele White (2002). Representations or People? Ethics and Information Technology 4 (3):249-266.
Ryan Spellecy & Thomas May (2012). More Than Cheating: Deception, IRB Shopping, and the Normative Legitimacy of IRBs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):990-996.
Added to index2012-12-01
Total downloads12 ( #280,292 of 1,792,922 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,828 of 1,792,922 )
How can I increase my downloads?