Choose 3 Out Of 4 Questions You Must Answer ✓ Solved

Choose 3 Out 4 Questions But You Have To Answer The Question 31 The

Choose 3 out of 4 questions, but you must answer Question 3.

The article, "Internet Research Ethics" by Elizabeth A. Buchana in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, discusses the issue of privacy as a critical aspect of ethical research. Explain why this is true. Add your own position.

Answer both parts A and B.

Part A: Explain what research ethics board guidelines are.

Part B: Present your own viewpoints on their value and limitations.

Intellectual property has 3 basic justifications. They are:

a) Personality-based justifications

b) Utilitarian justification

c) Lockean justification

Choose one of these justifications and provide an argument for the one you find most compelling.

There is a position that claims that information is not property and that information is protected by the 5th Amendment. Provide an argument for or against this claim.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding internet research, especially regarding privacy, are central to maintaining human dignity and trust in scientific inquiry. Elizabeth A. Buchana, in her detailed discussion within the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, emphasizes that privacy is a fundamental concern because it touches on individuals' rights to control their personal information. Privacy, as an ethical issue, is crucial because research often involves handling sensitive data about individuals, which, if misused or mishandled, can result in harm, discrimination, or loss of autonomy (Buchana, n.d.). Protecting privacy aligns with respecting individual autonomy and fostering trust in research practices. Without safeguarding privacy, the integrity and social acceptance of research are jeopardized, which can ultimately stifle scientific advancement and societal progress.

From my perspective, the importance of privacy in research extends beyond ethical compliance. It is essential for protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring that participation in research is voluntary and informed. Researchers have a duty to implement rigorous protocols to minimize risks related to privacy breaches, such as de-identification of data and secure storage methods. However, challenges remain due to technological advancements that can sometimes complicate privacy safeguards, such as the possibility of re-identification through data linkage (Mittelstadt et al., 2016). Therefore, ethical guidelines and policies must constantly evolve to address these emerging threats while respecting the rights of individuals.

Research ethics boards (REBs), also known as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), are committees established to review and oversee research involving human subjects. Their primary role is to ensure that research complies with ethical standards designed to protect participants from potential harm. These guidelines typically include principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, as outlined in the Belmont Report (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 1979). REBs scrutinize research proposals to assess risks and benefits, ensuring informed consent is obtained, and confidentiality is maintained. They serve as gatekeepers who facilitate ethical research and uphold public trust in scientific endeavors.

In my view, research ethics boards are invaluable in safeguarding human rights and promoting responsible research conduct. They act as critical checks against ethical lapses and misuse of power. Nonetheless, their limitations include potential bureaucratic delays, variability in standards across institutions, and sometimes a lack of specialized expertise in emerging fields like digital data or AI research (Resnik, 2018). Moreover, REBs may face conflicts between promoting innovative research and enforcing strict ethical standards. While their role is indispensable, continuous reform and increased training are necessary to adapt to advancements in research methodologies and changing societal norms.

Intellectual property (IP) laws are justified on various grounds, including personality-based justifications, utilitarian benefits, and Lockean principles. Of these, I find the Lockean justification most compelling. This justification, rooted in John Locke’s philosophy, argues that individuals acquire rights to property through their labor and efforts. When a person mixes their labor with natural resources, they gain ownership, provided enough remains for others (Locke, 1689). This perspective emphasizes fairness and individual effort as foundational for rights over intellectual creations, fostering innovation by recognizing creators’ efforts. It aligns with contemporary notions of copyright and patents, incentivizing invention while respecting individual rights (Lessig, 2004).

Regarding the claim that information is not property and that it is protected by the Fifth Amendment, there are compelling arguments both for and against. Those against the claim argue that information, inherently intangible and non-excludable, cannot fully be considered property, which traditionally requires exclusivity and control (Lessig, 2004). The Fifth Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination could extend to information, implying that individuals cannot be compelled to disclose certain data without due process. Conversely, supporters of treating information as property contend that giving it such status incentivizes innovation, creators’ rights, and economic growth (Samuelson, 2011). This view holds that recognizing information as property provides legal mechanisms to protect it from misuse, theft, or unauthorized dissemination, which aligns with modern intellectual property frameworks.

References

• Buchana, E. A. (n.d.). Internet Research Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-internet-research/
• Lessig, L. (2004). Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. Penguin.
• Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 2053951716679679.
• Resnik, D. B. (2018). The Role of Research Ethics Committees. In The Ethics of Scientific Research (pp. 85-104). Springer, Cham.
• Samuelson, P. (2011). Property rights and the digital economy. Communications of the ACM, 54(3), 51-55.
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (1979). The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.