Stephen Black wrote:
> A number of people seem stunned that we would send reviews externally
> for any project, faculty or student, and some noted that they were not
> supposed to consider scientific merit at all.
On the last point, these people are simply wrong. Although I agree with
John's arguments that training is an important part of a science, students
should not be allowed to do sloppy or othewise wasteful research. It is the
responsibility of ethics committees to consider scientific merit.
>From American Psychological Association's (1992) "Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct"
6.06 Planning Research.
(a) Psychologists design, conduct, and report research in accordance
with recognized standards of scientific competence and ethical research.
And, from the Canadian Psychological Association's (1996), "Guidelines for
the Use of Animals in Research and Instruction in Psychology: Commentary and
Elaboration."
Guideline 5. There must be a reasonable expectation that studies involving
animals will:
(a) increase understanding of structures and processes underlying
behaviour; or
(b) increase understanding of the particular animal species used
in the experiment; or
(c) result eventually in benefits to the health and welfare of
humans or other animals.
--
*****************************************************************
* Mike Scoles * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Department of Psychology * voice: (501) 450-5418 *
* University of Central Arkansas * fax: (501) 450-5424 *
* Conway, AR 72035-0001 * *
********* http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/scoles/index.html ********
