even though the Belmont Report was focused on US Biomedical Research,
the same principles of are found all over the world.
Now, Canada's Tri-Council Policy Statement addresses in
different language and slightly different issues and
certain things they raised to greater prominence about for
instance how they deal with first nation's peoples and the integrity of tribes.
But they're basically the same core ideas.
India has set of guidelines on Institutional Ethics Committees for
Human Research.
That look a lot like the same ideas you would find elsewhere
in other parts of the world.
There are guidelines in China.
There are guidelines in Finland.
Pretty much anywhere you go you'll find that there are some guidelines.
In some cases these are only medical.
In other cases they've been extended to nonmedical research.
Perhaps in part due to examples of harm
In non-medical studies like the famous Stanford prison experiments
where people had volunteered not really knowing what they were getting into.
And were assigned roles of either prisoner or guard, and locked up or
locking others up, and lead to some pretty harmful outcomes.
There were also some significant concerns raised
about some of the compliance experiments where
people suffered psychological harm from believing that they were administering
shocks to others who turned out to be actors who were pretending to be shocked.
Lots of examples that are not specifically.
Medical, some of this you may say feels very
far away from studying users in their context.
But the principles work out very much the same so I want to take a suggest three
key concepts and a couple of points as to how you might put them into practice.