Again, that's all interesting, I was focusing on clinical staff just so you can see the gravity of what can happen when research goes wrong. But let's look a little bit about the technology research and see. So here's the encore study. So encore collected information about how web users experience censorship. So if you were in the study and you didn't know you were in the study, but if you were in the study you would go to this website and that website would attempt to get you to go to another website that was censored. In the background, they collected information about you. So you didn't know it was happening, and they were making assumptions about your behavior and your psyche from that. Researchers collected data from 3.9 million users over only 17 days, and they associated self-censorship behavior with features describing their users. So if the person self-censored and didn't stay on that website or didn't click to go onto that website, they made assumptions about that person; their behavior and other, the way they interact with people and stuff like that, and they collected other data about that person. No one knew. No one knew that this was happening to them. So if you're sitting there browsing on the web, you wonder how many people are collecting data about you. Just think about that all the time. So Facebook users were a lot of this. They were not informed, they did not get consent. Again, they did not know this was happening. Is this study ethical? There's been a lot of debate about that. It's like when you go onto these public websites, you should just assume that people are looking at you. But what about little children? What about people who are just uninformed? They might be surfing the web and doing things and they just don't know that they're being watched by a 1,000 million big brothers out there. Now, we're going to talk about the Facebook study and you might have heard about this one. So in this one, again, there was 700,000 Facebook users who were involved in the study. So they had two groups. One group would receive more positive message from their friends and some of the negative messages just wouldn't show up, they were censored essentially. There was another control group where their messages were not altered at all. These two groups were compared to another group where the positive messages were censored out, and they got more negative information from people who posted to them. So they wanted to see how that affected people's psyche, and it turned out people who receive more positive messages, posted more positive messages; people who posted more negative messages, they would then post more negative messages. So there was something valuable learned about this that maybe we can control people a little bit, there's moods and emotions by posting more positive or more negative messages to them. But again, 700,000 people had their Facebook usage altered, they didn't receive posts from people that they would normally receive posts from. Then there were also watched, they were observed then to see how they would react to it. Was that ethical? Is it safe? I guess. So they weren't informed, they did not consent. So they weren't respected as you're supposed to respect your subjects. Then following this, there were some people who really thought deeply about it. So what's disturbing, could the CIA change our behavior in this? Could it be used for political purposes to run up to elections or to encourage people to stay on a site by feeding them with happy thoughts? So other people thought that perhaps changing people's behavior all through websites or their emotions through websites could be used for political purposes and run up to elections, it could make people vote a certain way. It could make people not vote. It could make people buy things that they wouldn't ordinarily buy. You could just change people's behavior by manipulating them through Facebook. So yeah, these ethics are important and what do you do with what I've taught you? How are you going to use this in the future? So let's look at some real time things that could happen. A lot of people use Google Earth right now. Now, what if Google Earth didn't use these three-year-old photos or five-year-old photos, and instead when you looked at Google Earth you saw real-time photos, and these photos showed people doing things, and it's from satellites, big brother's watching again. You could go on Google Earth and make assumptions about people by watching that. We have the technology to do that. NASA right now records a lot of people doing things in their everyday life. So research could be used or could be done using those data, and they wouldn't then get consent and things like that. How could that affect people? Could it harm people? What if Google Earth is used, it's all real time, and what if they show a bank robbery, or they show an accident, or a murder, or something. It could affect people. Yeah, it's good if people are caught doing those things but at the same time other people doing maybe not such bad things are also being watched when they do it, if this would take effect. So under the principles from the Belmont Report first is respect for persons. If you want to do research like that where you're watching people, how do you respect people and do that? How do you protect their rights, protect their welfare, and their safety? It could be impossible that you would have to think long and hard if that's the type of research you wanted to do. Right now in our IRB we look at research where individuals wear cameras, you have these wearable things and a lot of them have cameras, it's in their clothes and they're walking through a park or walking through a store and they are recording people when they do that. They might even get audio recordings when they do that, and no one knows, and there is research ongoing right now that does that. Most of the research is just looking at the experiences of the individual wearing the clothes, but then there's all these other people that they're recording and photographing that we need to protect their rights just as well as we're protecting the person who's wearing the clothes. That's similar to the Google Earth thing. There's also a lot of experiments going on right now just with GPS, or with other apps that people use that record data of bodily functions that record conversations. They could record like just a heart rate. Heart rate and GPS, put those two together and you can find out a lot about people. You can do that if the apps have data in the Cloud and you could get vendors to give you some of that data in a de-identified manner. But is that respecting the individuals from whom those data were derived? Yeah, think about that. Justice, what if you go into just very specific neighborhoods when you're recording things or wearing the wearable cameras and stuff. So you look at the justice issue. You look at their respect, and then you minimize the risk. You don't want to cause anyone harm when you're doing these types of things. So with all of our electronic gear we can wear, we can carry around, we can attach to our body and collect all these data. How do we protect the rights of the individual who's actually performing everything and then those around him who might just be secondary subjects who have no idea stuff is going on. So remember, you need to treat human research participants with the utmost respect. Minimize the risks when you do research and include and exclude subjects only for scientific reasons, not because they're convenient. Questions to ask yourself: is the social media public or private? What do people think when they're using this social media? What about informed consent, is there a way you can get conformed consent? You could notify them on the website. What about the individuals anonymity, is there a way you can keep them anonymous? Not show their face, not give enough information where someone could identify them. Could this research somehow result in harm to the individual? Could it be psychological harm, could it be legal risk, reputational harm, what about their job? Is there a way they could lose their job because of something you've recorded about them? Then what about their family? So you really need to think about all of these issues whenever you are writing your protocols and starting your research project. So I hope I've convinced you that the ethical principles apply when you're doing research involving technology. If in the future you do research that involves human subjects, you must go to your IRB and get approval before you start your research, and you should look on the IRBs website or contact the IRB to find out exactly how you're supposed to do it. You can also get help from the IRB when writing your protocol, so that you put the principles that we've learned about into your research and protect the human beings when you're conducting your research so that no one is harmed and everyone's rights are respected.