THE EMERGING ETHICS OF INTERNET RESEARCH

by Crystale Cooper

Online discussions from nasw-talk form the basis of a paper published in the June 2002 issue of Social Science & Medicine (Vol. 54, Issue 12). The online exchange took place following the publication in the New York Times of science writer Gina Kolata's article on the work of cancer researcher Judah Folkman. The story triggered a 12-day e-mail discussion among 63 science writers in three countries. The postings included critiques of the Times story as well as extensive discussion about public understanding of the medical-research news coverage, all of which are analyzed in the journal article.

Is the use of online postings ethical research? I am the lead author of the study, and I believe it is.

Three years ago, when this analysis was conducted, I found very little guidance in the published literature on the legal and ethical issues involved in studying Internet discourse. So I consulted a university attorney. We both felt that nasw-talk postings constituted published material, because anyone surfing the Web could access them as I had. Furthermore, since I was using the postings for research purposes, the attorney felt that any copyright restrictions would be waived under the fair-use exemption.

Even though the attorney did not feel it was necessary, I contacted nasw-talk administrator, Bob Finn, and he saw no problem with my moving forward. Finn also happened to be one of the science writers who took part in the dialogue. So I count him as the one participant who provided informed consent a priori.

While I believed that I had exceeded my legal and ethical obligations, the scientific journal that reviewed my submitted manuscript did not agree. Like a typical content analysis, the report primarily described the postings in aggregate, but included several anonymous quotations for illustrative purposes. The journal's editorial staff refused to consider the manuscript unless I obtained permission from the 19 posters who were quoted in the paper. I did what the journal asked, and all but one participant consented to the inclusion of their words in the article.

At the time, I gave little thought to the dissenting poster. I simply removed her quotation and resubmitted the paper. In retrospect, I am extremely grateful that the journal pushed me to expand my consent procedures. However, it remains unclear whether this extra step was ethically mandated.

Today, the ethical standards for online research remain unresolved. The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections, which oversees federally financed studies involving human participants, has not addressed Internet research ethics to date. However, the Association of Internet Researchers has released a preliminary ethics report, but it is a working document which lacks clarity. On the issue of informed consent, the report summarizes the divergent opinions of researchers, but offers no definitive guidance. Some believe that individuals who participate in public Internet discourse implicitly consent to observation. Others argue that these individuals have a reasonable expectation that their communication is ephemeral and not being studied without their consent.

The absence of ethical standards is particularly troubling given the emergence of online research in which participants are purposefully deceived. For example, researchers from Berkeley and Yale University entered white racists' chat rooms and discussed various economic and cultural threats posed by African Americans to explore what prompted violent rhetoric from discussants. Similarly, a psychologist based at the University of Central Lancashire (Ireland) studied the online behavior of pedophiles by pretending to be an eight-, 10-, or 12-year-old child in chat rooms.

The candid, timely nature of online discourse makes it very attractive to researchers. In the case of my study, nasw-talk captured science writers' immediate reactions to an unfolding news event. Obtaining approval to have direct contact with human subjects generally takes at least 10 days at most institutions. Thus, a study of this type would not have been possible using traditional research methods, such as a survey or interview.

While the ethical standards for Internet research continue to be debated, experts agree that the public needs to be educated about the possibility of being monitored online. A suggestion offered by the Association of Internet Researchers is that online discussion forums display prominent warnings to participants. The NASW Web site included such a privacy statement three years ago when I studied the nasw-talk postings, and continues to post it today. While this notice is not as prominent or succinct as it might be, it is present. Conversely, I randomly selected 10 other e-mail discussion-list Web pages and 10 chat-room Web pages, and none of them included such a warning.

#

Crystale Cooper, Ph.D., is a behavioral scientist who worked at the University of Arizona College of Medicine when the nasw-talk study described above was conducted. She can be reached at ccooper@cdc.gov.

Return to NASW homepage.

Return to NASW Members' Lobby.

Return to ScienceWriters Newsletter homepage.