Limits of ethical non-human subjects research in an applied setting

• Published in: Accountability in research pp. 1 - 22
• Main Author: Biggs, Adam T
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 18.02.2024
• Subjects: abuse; non-human subjects; oversight; Research; ethics
• ISSN: 0898-9621; 1545-5815
• DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2313018

Ethical research follows numerous rules and regulations to ensure that all human subjects are protected during the collection and dissemination of research outcomes. Nevertheless, there is often a critical distinction drawn between human subjects research and non-human subjects research (NHSR). The latter can also be described as non-research activities, which typically reduces any oversight even if human subjects are involved. Despite the need to conduct ethical NHSR or non-research activities in an applied setting, there are several ways this determination can be used to circumvent regulatory oversight. In particular, the problem arises because one or more of several key functions become conflated in an applied setting, whereas they would be compartmentalized and independent in controlled or experimental settings. These functions include: 1) ethical oversight; 2) funding; 3) execution; and 4) peer review. The current discussion outlines how NHSR in an applied setting can allow these functions to overlap, and how personnel might stretch the boundaries of ethical conduct even while following existing regulations. As such, the goal is to guide future practices when conducting or reviewing NHSR in an applied setting so that unethical practices do not bias the results.