What a tangled web we weave: ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment.
Deception in human subject research is neither uncommon nor prohibited. The use of deception in the recruitment phase of clinical research has received relatively little attention. Given that informed consent is foundational to human subject research, the practice of misrepresenting the study purpose in clinical research would seem to contradict one of the fundamental tenets of ethical human subjects research. Using the example of prodromal psychosis, this article the ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment and the sufficiency of current guidance on the practice when the study involves a stigmatizing condition, the collection of genetic samples, or both. I conclude that when these two elements are present, deception should only be used when absolutely necessary and, if used, researchers should be required to debrief participants before the collection of genetic samples and give particular attention to minimizing risks of privacy breaches.
Pierce
Robin
R
Novel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. pierce7@post.harvard.edu
D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008192:Deception; D030661:Genetic Privacy / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009488:Neurosciences / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D018579:Patient Selection / Q000941:ethics*; D011287:Prejudice; D011618:Psychotic Disorders / Q000235:genetics; D035844:Researcher-Subject Relations / Q000941:ethics