Editing Psychology (section)

== Ethics ==
Ethical standards in the discipline have changed over time. Some famous past studies are today considered unethical and in violation of [[Guidelines for human subject research#APA Ethics Code|established codes]] (e.g., the Canadian Code of Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and the [[Belmont Report]]). The American Psychological Association has advanced a set of ethical principles and a [[APA Ethics Code|code]] of conduct for the profession.<ref name=":1">American Psychological Association. (2016). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.[https://www.apa.org/ethics/code]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180206013229/http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html|date=6 February 2018}}</ref>

The most important contemporary standards include informed and voluntary consent. After World War II, the [[Nuremberg Code]] was established because of Nazi abuses of experimental subjects. Later, most countries (and scientific journals) adopted the [[Declaration of Helsinki]]. In the U.S., the [[National Institutes of Health]] established the [[Institutional Review Board]] in 1966, and in 1974 adopted the [[National Research Act]] (HR 7724). All of these measures encouraged researchers to obtain informed consent from human participants in experimental studies. A number of influential but ethically dubious studies led to the establishment of this rule; such studies included the [[Walter E. Fernald Developmental Center#Nuclear medicine research in children|MIT-Harvard Fernald School radioisotope studies]], the [[Thalidomide scandal|Thalidomide tragedy]], the [[Hepatitis#Willowbrook State School experiments|Willowbrook hepatitis study]], [[Milgram experiment|Stanley Milgram's studies of obedience to authority]], and the [[Stanford prison experiment|Stanford Prison Experiment]].

=== Ethics with Humans ===

The [[APA Ethics Code|ethics code of the American Psychological Association]] originated in 1951 as "Ethical Standards of Psychologists." This code has guided the formation of licensing laws in most American states. It has changed multiple times over the decades since its adoption, and contains both aspirational principles and binding ethical standards. 

The APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct consists of five General Principles, which are meant to guide psychologists to higher ethical practice where a particular standard does not apply. Those principles are:

'''A. Beneficence and Nonmaleficence''' - meaning the psychologists must work to benefit those they work with and "do no harm." This includes awareness of indirect benefits and harms their work might have on others due to personal, social, political, or other factors. 

'''B. Fidelity and Responsibility''' - an awareness of public trust in the profession and adherence to ethical standards and clarification of roles to preserve that trust. This includes managing conflicts of interest, as well as committing some portion of a psychologist's professional time to low-cost or pro bono work. 

'''C. Integrity''' - upholding honesty and accuracy in all psychological practices, including avoiding misrepresentations and fraud. In situations where psychologists would use deception (i.e., certain research), psychologists must consider the necessity, benefits, and harms, and mitigate any harms where possible. 

'''D. Justice -''' an understanding that psychology must be for everyone's benefit, and that psychologists take special care to avoid unjust practices as a result of biases or limitations of expertise. 

'''E. Respect for People's Rights and Dignity''' - the preservation of people's rights when working with psychologists, including confidentially, privacy, and autonomy. Psychologists should consider a multitude of factors, including a need for special safeguards for protected populations (e.g., minors, incarcerated individuals) and awareness of differences based on numerous factors, including culture, race, age, gender, and socioeconomic status. 

In 1989, the APA revised its policies on advertising and referral fees to negotiate the end of an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. The 1992 incarnation was the first to distinguish between "aspirational" ethical standards and "enforceable" ones. The APA code was further revised in 2010 to prevent the use of the code to justify violating human rights, which was in response to the participation of APA members in interrogations under the administration of United States President George W. Bush.<ref>{{Cite web |date=February 24, 2010 |title=American Psychological Association amends ethics code to address potential conflicts among professional ethics, legal authority and organizational demands |url=https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/02/ethics-code |access-date=November 9, 2024 |publisher=APA.org}}</ref> Members of the public have a five-year window to file ethics complaints about APA members with the APA ethics committee; members of the APA have a three-year window.<ref name="HandbookJones">Stanley E. Jones, "Ethical Issues in Clinical Psychology", in Weiner (ed.), ''Handbook of Psychology'' (2003), Volume 8: ''Clinical Psychology''.</ref>

The Canadian Psychological Association used the APA code until 1986, when it developed its own code drawing from four similar principles: 1) Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples, 2) Responsible Caring, 3) Integrity in Relationships, 4) Responsibility to Society.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 2017 |title=Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, Fourth Edition |url=https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Ethics/CPA_Code_2017_4thEd.pdf |access-date=November 9, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Pope |first=Kenneth S. |chapter=Ethical Issues in Clinical Psychology |title=The Oxford handbook of clinical psychology |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2011 |pages=184–210 |editor-last=Barlow |editor-first=D. H. |edition=1st |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328710.013.018|isbn=978-0-19-932871-0 }}</ref> The European Federation of Psychologist's Associations, have adopted a model code using the principles of the Canadian Code, while also drawing from the APA code.<ref>{{Cite web |year=2015 |title=Model Code of Ethics |url=https://www.efpa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-03/model-code-of-ethics.pdf |access-date=November 9, 2024 |website=European Federation of Psychologists' Associations}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lindsay |first=G |date=1998 |title=The first decade of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists |journal=Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=242–243 |doi=10.1037/h0092313}}</ref>

Universities have ethics committees dedicated to protecting the rights (e.g., voluntary nature of participation in the research, privacy) and well-being (e.g., minimizing distress) of research participants. University ethics committees evaluate proposed research to ensure that researchers protect the rights and well-being of participants; an investigator's research project cannot be conducted unless approved by such an ethics committee.<ref>The American Psychological Society: [http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/index.aspx Responsible Conduct of Research]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124162156/http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/index.aspx |date=24 November 2018 }}</ref>

The field of psychology also identifies certain categories of people that require additional or special protection due to particular vulnerabilities, unequal power dynamics, or diminished capacity for informed consent. This list often includes, but is not limited to, children, incarcerated individuals, pregnant women, human fetuses and neonates, institutionalized persons, those with physical or mental disabilities, and the educationally or economically disadvantaged.<ref>45 CFR §46.107</ref> 

Some of the ethical issues considered most important are the requirement to practice only within the area of competence, to maintain confidentiality with the patients, and to avoid sexual relations with them. Another important principle is [[informed consent]], the idea that a patient or research subject must understand and freely choose a procedure they are undergoing.<ref name="HandbookJones" /> Some of the most common complaints against clinical psychologists include sexual misconduct<ref name="HandbookJones" /> and breaches in confidentiality or privacy.<ref name="HandbookJones2">Stanley E. Jones, "Ethical Issues in Clinical Psychology", in Weiner (ed.), ''Handbook of Psychology'' (2003), Volume 8: ''Clinical Psychology''.</ref>

Psychology ethics apply to all types of human contact in a psychologist's professional capacity, including therapy, assessment, teaching, training, work with research subjects, testimony in courts and before government bodies, consulting, and statements to the public or media pertaining to matters of psychology.<ref name=":1" />

=== Ethics with other animals ===
Research on other animals is governed by university ethics committees. Research on nonhuman animals cannot proceed without permission of the ethics committee, of the researcher's home institution. Ethical guidelines state that using non-human animals for scientific purposes is only acceptable when the harm (physical or psychological) done to animals is outweighed by the benefits of the research.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Sherwin | first1 = C.M. | last2 = Christionsen | first2 = S.B. | last3 = Duncan | first3 = I.J. | last4 = Erhard | first4 = H.W. | last5 = Lay Jr. | first5 = D.C. | last6 = Mench | first6 = J.A. | last7 = O'Connor | first7 = C.E. | last8 = Petherick | first8 = J.C. | year = 2003 | title = Guidelines for the Ethical use of animals in the applied ethology studies | journal = Applied Animal Behaviour Science | volume = 81 | issue = 3| pages = 291–305 | doi=10.1016/s0168-1591(02)00288-5}}</ref> Psychologists can use certain research techniques on animals that could not be used on humans.

Comparative psychologist [[Harry Harlow]] drew moral condemnation for [[pit of despair|isolation experiments]] on rhesus macaque monkeys at the [[University of Wisconsin–Madison]] in the 1970s.<ref>Blum 1994, p. 95, Blum 2002, pp. 218–219. Blum 1994, p. 95: "...&nbsp;the most controversial experiment to come out of the Wisconsin laboratory, a device that Harlow insisted on calling the 'pit of despair.{{'"}}</ref> The aim of the research was to produce an animal model of [[clinical depression]]. Harlow also devised what he called a "rape rack", to which the female isolates were tied in normal monkey mating posture.{{r|Blum 2002|pp=|q=}} In 1974, American literary critic [[Wayne C. Booth]] wrote that, "Harry Harlow and his colleagues go on torturing their nonhuman primates decade after decade, invariably proving what we all knew in advance—that social creatures can be destroyed by destroying their social ties." He writes that Harlow made no mention of the criticism of the morality of his work.<ref>Booth, Wayne C. ''Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent'', Volume 5, of University of Notre Dame, Ward-Phillips lectures in English language and literature, University of Chicago Press, 1974, p. 114. Booth is explicitly discussing this experiment. His next sentence is, "His most recent outrage consists of placing monkeys in 'solitary' for twenty days—what he calls a 'vertical chamber apparatus .... designed on an intuitive basis' to produce 'a state of helplessness and hopelessness, sunken in a well of despair.{{'"}}</ref>

Animal research is influential in psychology, while still being debated among academics. The testing of animals for research has led to medical breakthroughs in human medicine. Many psychologists argue animal experimentation is essential for human advancement, but must be regulated by the government to ensure ethicality.