Image from National Archives (ID 956091)
In reviewing the requirements for LRNT522 Unit 1 Activity 3, I chose an alternate definition of good to answer the question, “What makes a good research question?”. Instead of equating good with effective or valid, I have chosen to answer the question by framing good through a moral lens, defined as humane or ethical, based on other readings and information I have encountered in recent years.
So, what makes a good research question?
To consider what makes a good research question, it’s important to recognize where bad research questions have led to intended or unintended harm.
An oft-cited example of unethical research was the Tuskegee study in 1932 in Macon Alabama, where 600 African American men were recruited to participate in a research study undertaken by the US Public Health Service. (McVean, 2019). The goal of the study was to observe the progression of untreated syphilis in a black community by infecting men who were unaware and lying to them about receiving treatment (McVean, 2019). It was a truly horrific experiment based on racist philosophies and a diabolical research question that ended with the death of 128 patients, 40 wives infected, and 19 children acquiring congenital syphilis over the 37 years of the experiment (McVean, 2019).
Canada has its own history of bad research questions leading to horrific outcomes. Hyett, Marjerrison and Gabel’s 2018 synopsis in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) describes the dreadful malnutrition experiments performed on Indigenous children in residential schools and in their communities between 1942 and 1952. In addition to an increased risk of death from malnutrition and disease conditions in residential schools, there were lasting effects on those children, including possible epigenetic changes that can be passed on to future generations (Mosby & Galloway, 2017). Also noted in Hyett, Marjerrison, and Gabel’s article is the bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination experiment, where the Department of Indian Affairs saw Indigenous peoples as suitable test subjects for immunization with a vaccine of questionable efficacy and safety.
In all these examples, the subjects of bad research questions were manipulated, lied to, and even died because researchers pursued experimentation without consideration for the well-being of the participants.
Thankfully, research ethics guidance has developed in recent decades, particularly in Canada, including the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2) that introduced Chapter 9: Research Involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada in 2018. In addition, research education programs have been developed by First Nations on the principles of ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) to assert First Nations people’s right to self-determination in research (First Nations Information Governance Centre, n.d).
So, a good research question considers experimental subjects’ well-being and right to self-determination as core principles.
References
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022). https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2022.html
First Nations Information Governance Centre (n.d.). The First Nations principles of OCAP. FNIGC. https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/
Hyett, S. Marjerrison, S, & Gabel, C. (2018, May) Improving health research among Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190(20), E616-E621. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.171538
McVean, A. (2019, January 25). 40 years of human experimentation in America: The Tuskegee study. McGill University Office for Science and Society. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history/40-years-human-experimentation-america-tuskegee-study
Mosby, I. & Galloway, T. (2017, January 9). ‘The abiding condition was hunger’: assessing the long-term biological and health effects of malnutrition and hunger in Canada’s residential schools. British Journal of Canadian Studies 30(2). https://doi.org/10.3828/bjcs.2017.9
I love your take on this. It nicely dovetails with the work we’ll be doing in this course in particular (I recently finished going through all of the TCPS material). Nicely done.
Have you seen the documentary Three Identical Strangers? It is an account of another disturbing, unethical study that was conducted by two psychiatrists, backed by the Jewish Board in the United States, where triplets were separated at birth then studied through the ‘nature vs nurture’ lens. Near the end of the film, it is noted that it is unlikely that a study like that will ever been conducted again—and that the study data has been sealed until 2066. There are no winners. It’s a heartbreaking piece of history, like the studies you’ve mentioned.
I remember hearing about that study from a colleague, but I didn’t realize that a documentary had been made about it. I just checked Amazon Prime, and I can watch it through a free trial of Sundance. Thanks for mentioning this; I know what I’m watching this weekend!
At some point in our program, I hope to expand on ethical questions to extend to technology advancement and precisely how the “move fast and break things” perspective has supplanted the “don’t be evil” mantra. It’s incredible how we are regularly experimented on, causing potentially massive negative externalities to society and our world without considering whether it is ethical. A good question for the “move fast and break things” camp is, “Do you know what you are breaking?”.
Yes, agree. The ethical implications of a research question are a critical aspect that you’ve done a great job of conveying here. Thanks for sharing the documentary information -I was not familiar with this. Along with “move fast and break things”, I also wonder what the impact of AI will have on the ethical aspects of research questions.