This Perspective Essay draws from an experience of deception in virtual fieldwork and considers implications for those designing methodologies for virtual ethnographies. As qualitative field work increasingly takes place within virtual spaces and through virtual means, researchers are faced with critical dilemmas in the processes of data gathering and verification. One of these dilemmas concerns ensuring data validity and facticity if encountered with research subjects who are deceptive about their identity, experiences, or relationship to the field of research. This Perspective Essay offers specific guidelines concerning articulating the nature and possibilities of deception in virtual spaces, identifying deceptive data, and what to do with deceptive data in order to maintain data validity and transparency.

Informed consent and debriefing of research participants in studies that use deception are ethical safeguards for which existing scholarly work on their implementation remains variable and insufficiently clear. A systematic review of research ethics guidelines was conducted to sketch a picture of whether, why and how informed consent and debriefing are recommended when using deception. Documents roughly agreed on several general principles, but varied significantly in the specifics of why and whether these safeguards are necessary, in which conditions and how they should be implemented. Various aspects that appear in the literature could not be found in the guidelines. In our review, guidance was integrated and showed a variation of implementation strategies that could help in contextualizing these safeguards.

UNASSIGNED: Many techniques and modifications commonly used by the simulation community have been identified as deceptive. Deception is an important issue addressed by both the newly adopted Healthcare Simulationist Code of Ethics and the American Psychological Association Code of Conduct. Some view these approaches as essential whereas others question their necessity as well as their untoward psychological effects. In an attempt to offer guidance to simulation-based healthcare educators, we explore educational practices commonly identified as deceptive along with their potential benefits and detriments. We then address important decision points and high-risk situations that should be avoided to uphold ethical boundaries and psychological safety among learners. These are subsequently analyzed in light of the Code of Ethics and used to formulate guidelines for educators that are intended to ensure that deception, when necessary, is implemented in as psychologically safe a manner as possible.

The general consensus among sport and exercise genetics researchers is that genetic tests have no role to play in talent identification or the individualised prescription of training to maximise performance. Despite the lack of evidence, recent years have witnessed the rise of an emerging market of direct-to-consumer marketing (DTC) tests that claim to be able to identify children\'s athletic talents. Targeted consumers include mainly coaches and parents. There is concern among the scientific community that the current level of knowledge is being misrepresented for commercial purposes. There remains a lack of universally accepted guidelines and legislation for DTC testing in relation to all forms of genetic testing and not just for talent identification. There is concern over the lack of clarity of information over which specific genes or variants are being tested and the almost universal lack of appropriate genetic counselling for the interpretation of the genetic data to consumers. Furthermore independent studies have identified issues relating to quality control by DTC laboratories with different results being reported from samples from the same individual. Consequently, in the current state of knowledge, no child or young athlete should be exposed to DTC genetic testing to define or alter training or for talent identification aimed at selecting gifted children or adolescents. Large scale collaborative projects, may help to develop a stronger scientific foundation on these issues in the future.

暂无摘要。

Nursing faculty members have become increasingly concerned with student incidences of cheating and the associated lack of commitment to ethical conduct. Our faculty believed that actively engaging students in the development of specific behavioral guidelines would result in improved ethical conduct and provide a bridge to future professional ethical practice. The authors discuss the use of focus groups to establish clear behavioral guidelines that align with the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics.

During the past two decades clinical and research efforts have led to increasingly sophisticated and effective methods and instruments designed to detect exaggeration or fabrication of neuropsychological dysfunction, as well as somatic and psychological symptom complaints. A vast literature based on relevant research has emerged and substantial portions of professional meetings attended by clinical neuropsychologists have addressed topics related to malingering (Sweet, King, Malina, Bergman, & Simmons, 2002). Yet, despite these extensive activities, understanding the need for methods of detecting problematic effort and response bias and addressing the presence or absence of malingering has proven challenging for practitioners. A consensus conference, comprised of national and international experts in clinical neuropsychology, was held at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) for the purposes of refinement of critical issues in this area. This consensus statement documents the current state of knowledge and recommendations of expert clinical neuropsychologists and is intended to assist clinicians and researchers with regard to the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments experienced some disagreements among its members in the course of its work. An epistemological controversy over the nature and degree of evidence required to draw ethical conclusions pervaded the Committee\'s deliberations. Other disagreements involved the proper role of a governmental advisory committee and the question of when it is appropriate to notify people that they were unknowing subjects of radiation experiments. In the end, the Committee was able to reach consensus on almost all of its findings and recommendations through a process that preserved the integrity of its members.