An Email Exchange with Notables at the Society for Research on Child Development Regarding Their New Statement of Ethical Principles

Calling George Orwell

This is a guest post by Dr. Robert Guttentag who retired recently after more than 30 years in the Department of Psychology at University of North Carolina Greensboro. His research as a developmental psychologist focused on the development of memory and developmental change in children's counterfactual reasoning and the experiencing of regret.  No one who knows him would be surprised to learn that his favorite story as a child was The Emperor's New Clothes.

It is an Orwellian email exchange between Rob and some of the notables at The Society for Research on Child Development (SRCD) about their new social justice ethical standards. The exchange is notable for their failure to answer most of his questions, despite the politeness with which he asked them. Rob has also commented on some of the emails, I will use bold italics to identify them.

caption...

I have deleted email addresses and phone numbers that appeared in the emails in order to reduce the chance of any of these people being harassed. Everything else is as I received it.

To help keep track of the different emails, I inserted one of these lines between separate emails:

---

From: Robert Guttentag
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:45 PM
To: Kenneth Dodge
Subject: Ethical Principles and Standards for Developmental Scientists

 Dr. Dodge

 I have a couple of questions about the new ethical standards that I hoped you (or perhaps someone else from the governing council) could address.

 Under Principle C (Equity), it is stated that:

 Developmental scientists conduct research designed to promote fairness and justice for individuals’ developmental outcomes and equity in access to experiences and resources for children and families regardless of group characteristics—including, but not limited to: age; socioeconomic status; race, ethnicity and nationality; religion; linguistic background; sex and gender identity and expression; sexual orientation; mental health; physical, cognitive, and learning abilities; mental health; and other aspects of human diversity. 

 I honestly don't know what that means.  This statement reads as if it defines what is (and by implication, what isn't) what research by "developmental scientists" is designed to do.  But that can't possibly be true, can it?  Perhaps this is what SOME developmental scientists do, but surely not all.  This statement basically states that ALL acceptable research must be "..  designed to promote fairness and justice for individuals’ developmental outcomes and equity in access to experiences and resources for children and families regardless of group characteristics".  However, to pick a non-random example, my own work on memory development and reasoning is unquestionably not "designed to promote fairness and justice".  Does that mean it's NOT acceptable and/or that I'm not a developmental scientist?   And if the principle does not apply to the kinds of research that I (and many others) do, then what is the point of this principle?  If it is simply a statement describing what SOME developmental scientists do, why is the statement part of this document?  Can you clarify for me what kinds of developmental research are NOT acceptable/ethical according to this principle and which scientists who conduct developmental psychology research are actually not qualified to call themselves "developmental scientists"?  How is it possible to even know whether research is "designed to promote fairness and justice for individuals' developmental outcomes"?  Where, for example, would research on the effects of the use of puberty blockers fall on this question?  Does that kind of work promote fairness and justice or not?  What about research on racial differences in aggressive behaviors in school?   Would that kind of research be ethical or not ethical according to this principle?  Would researchers who study racial differences in aggressive behaviors in school even be considered to be developmental scientists?

 Principle C continues:

 Developmental research does not exploit or exacerbate existing inequities between groups of differing social status or power based upon group characteristics, or lead to further injustices or inequities in social, economic, educational, environmental, and health outcomes.

 What does it mean to "exploit" existing inequities?  Does that mean that it would not be permissible/ethical to study inequities at all?  How would the study of inequities NOT involve exploiting inequities?  If this statement does not rule out as impermissible all research on inequities, what kinds of research ARE impermissible/unethical according to this principle?  And how would it be possible to know whether or not one's research might "lead to further injustices or inequities"?  Would, for example, research on social class differences in styles of child rearing be inherently exploitative, and how would one know whether the results of such work would (or would not) lead to further injustices or inequities?  Isn't the question of whether such research would lead to further inequities an empirical one -- the answer to which cannot be known with certainty before doing the research, reporting the findings, and then assessing the impact of the research?

I have basically the same question about Ethical Standards 3B:

 3.b. Reducing developmental inequities. Developmental scientists have a responsibility to understand current inequities in developmental outcomes and/or inequities in access to resources and services that promote positive development. In doing so, their research aims to counteract or dismantle the structures and systems that cause inequity and ensure that their work does not exacerbate these inequities in research, practice, or policy.

 How is a researcher supposed to know ahead of time whether or not their research will "counteract or dismantle the structures and systems that cause inequity" and how is it possible for a researcher to "ensure" that their work "does not exacerbate those inequities"?  Would, for example, Fred Morrison's research on schooling effects "counteract or dismantle the structures and systems that cause inequity" and how would Fred know, before doing the work and then assessing its impact, whether or not the results will "exacerbate these inequities"?  And if a question about research like Fred's cannot be quickly and easily answered, how are researchers supposed to apply this standard in the practice of their own research?

Thanks for taking the time to address these questions (or for forwarding them to a more appropriate member of the council).

 Regards

 Rob

---

On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 8:04 AM Kenneth Dodge wrote:

Rob,

Thank you for your note. SRCD is a member-driven organization, and it relies on members like yourself to guide policies and move the field forward. I read with interest your carefully-considered message. I am copying our Governing Council, Executive Director, and the Chair of the Ethics Code Task Force that reviewed the ethical standards. I ask that these groups take up your message and reply to you after the Biennial Meeting concludes, when the new Governing Council and Executive Director are in place. I hope you understand the slight delay in replying due to these transitions.

Thank you.

Ken

 Kenneth A. Dodge

Duke University

---

[I was then cc’ed on an email from Celia Fisher.  I’m not sure what Celia Fisher’s role was in the writing of these standards]

Celia Fisher 

Tue, Apr 6, 2021, 12:45 PM

to Kenneth, me, Governing, Marty, Saima, Lorah

Hi Ken, I wanted to mention that these types of comments are fairly typical in response to a new ethics code and often reflect a more libertarian perspective that any such standards are limiting. As other organizations have done, it may be helpful to consider indicating somewhere on the website or having a standard response from the Chair, that SRCD cannot respond to individual questions regarding the Code, but that there will be periodic posts on the application of the Ethics Code reflecting member interests. 

All the best,

Celia

---

[I then sent a thank you email to Ken Dodge, and in that email noted that I thought Celia Fisher’s email was insulting, dismissive, patronizing, and a misrepresentation of my perspective. I asked whether Celia Fisher spoke for SRCD. Apparently, a copy of my email – or a summary of my email – was sent to Celia Fisher, who then sent me a second email.]

Celia Fisher

Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 10:04 PM

to me, Nancy

Dear Dr. Guttentag,

I’m so sorry if my too hastily crafted email caused you any discomfort. Your emails raised important issues, and in response, Ethics Code Task Force members are considering how best to address such concerns among the membership. In particular, we will consider how to best communicate that the SRCD Ethics Code is designed to facilitate and not impede the everyday work of developmental scientists, nor is it intended to define developmental science. Rather it aims to provide a set of values and broad general rules that developmental scientists can interpret and apply as a function of their own unique roles and the contexts in which they are embedded. Thank you for taking the time to raise these issues so that we can continue to foster both good science and ethics.

Sincerely,

Celia

--

Celia B. Fisher, PhD.

Marie Ward Doty University Chair in Ethics

Professor of Psychology, 

Director Center for Ethics Education

Director HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute

Director, Human Development and Social Justice Lab

Fordham University, Dealy hall

441 East Fordham Road

Bronx, NY 10458

Administrative Assistant Lori Merone

Follow the Ethics Center on Twitter and Facebook: @FordhamEthics and on our blog ethicsandsociety.org

Preferred pronouns: she, her, hers

---

[My feelings are not relevant; it was the questions I asked that mattered, and I did not think that the other information provided in Celia Fisher’s second email answered my questions. For the record -- Celia’s Fisher’s initial email did not cause me “discomfort”.  I have three children and four grandchildren, and I served as a department head; if an email like the one I received from Celia Fisher had the power to cause me actual discomfort, I would have spent much of my adult life discomforted.]

I then received a much-appreciated email from Nancy Hill, the incoming SRCD president.]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 6:36 PM Hill, Nancy wrote:

Dear Dr. Guttentag,

Since the Biennial Meeting, I have transitioned into the role of president. In this role, I would like to reply to your email. I realize that it has taken some time to do so and I apologize for that. It takes everything we have as an organization to launch the Biennial meeting, especially in the virtual format and with a new executive director. Then, I wanted to be apprised of your concerns before responding.  I would like to thank you for raising the issues that you did.  The questions you raised regarding the application of the Code to the everyday work of developmental scientists are important.

Knowing that many members would have questions, Celia, who is an ethicist, along with the other members of the Ethics Code Task Force, led a presentation and discussion of the Standards during the SRCD Virtual Biennial Meeting. In that meeting, they addressed concerns like the ones you raised and answered questions.  Our desire is for this document to reflect and address the ethical challenges that have emerged in our dynamic cultural landscape. If you weren’t able to join that session, you can still find it on our virtual conference website. It is titled, “Aligning the SRCD Ethical Principles and Standards with Research Ethics Practices in a Twenty-first Century World” and it can be found on the Friday April 9^th schedule under professional development.  

Over the past year, the SRCD Ethics Code Task Force met monthly to revise the Society for Research in Child Development Ethical Principles and Standards. Drawing on current federal regulations, International guidance documents and ethics codes from other scientific organizations, the Task Force approached this work with the goal of bringing SRCD ethical principles and standards in alignment with current research ethics practices and in response to this moment of societal change and future challenges.

The resulting SRCD Ethics Code describes the general ethical principles reflecting the highest ideals of developmental science and the more specific behavioral standards that guide developmental scientists to achieve these ideals. It is designed to facilitate and not impede the conduct of developmental science. The principles articulate aspirational values of the field and the standards are meant to reflect guidance, not rules, for decision making. The Code is not intended to define developmental science nor to dictate specific research designs, populations, or contexts. It was not intended to prohibit any of the important types of research described in your email. Rather, it aims to provide a set of values and broad general rules that developmental scientists can interpret and apply as a function of their own unique roles and the contexts in which they are embedded. 

In the future, SRCD will continue to underscore these aims to address member concerns. Thank you again for raising these issues.

Warmly,

Nancy Hill

(cc’d: are The SRCD Ethics Code Task Force, Past-President Ken Dodge, Executive Director Saima Hedrick, and former Interim Executive Director Marty Zaslow)

______________________________

Nancy E. Hill, Ph.D.

Charles Bigelow Professor of Education

Harvard University

14 Appian Way

Cambridge, MA 02138

Follow me on Twitter @ProfNancyHill

My new book: “The End of Adolescence: The Lost Art of Delaying Adulthood” Harvard University Press

---

[I replied to Nancy Hill’s email]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:58 PM Robert Guttentag wrote: 

Dear Nancy

>>I would like to reply to your email. I realize that it has taken some time to do so and I apologize for that

No need at all for the apology.  I know how busy you must be, and I appreciate your having reached out to me.

>> If you weren’t able to join that session, you can still find it on our virtual conference website

Because I never registered for the meeting, I don’t have registration credentials, so I can’t log in.  However, in your email, and in the email I received from Celia, the goals of the new Ethical Principles and Standards were made clearer, and in that context, I have a few additional comments (and my apologies if the questions asked in this email are ones that were directly addressed during the SRCD workshop).

>>The resulting SRCD Ethics Code describes the general ethical principles reflecting the highest ideals of developmental science and the more specific behavioral standards that guide developmental scientists to achieve these ideals....The principles articulate aspirational values of the field and the standards are meant to reflect guidance, not rules, for decision making.

When I read the title “Ethical Principles and Standards” I think of a set of statements designed, primarily, to define what is, and is not, considered to be ethical practice (in this case, the practice of child development research) – much like the principles and standards that guide IRBs when they make judgments regarding the ethical status of a proposed research project.  Indeed, I would expect the IRB at my university (or any university) to make reference to a discipline’s “Ethical Principles and Standards” when making judgments regarding proposed research projects in that discipline.

If I understand correctly what both you and Celia have written, for an IRB to do what I have described above would be inappropriate, because the SRCD document represents “aspirational” statements that do not bear directly on the ethical status of any particular line of research; accordingly the document should not be used by an IRB to guide their decisions regarding the ethical status of a research project.  Is that correct?.   My interpretation of Celia’s and your descriptions is that the Ethical Principles and Standards do NOT describe characteristics that research MUST have in order to be ethical, do not describe characteristics that research MUST NOT have in order to be ethical, do not describe characteristics that research SHOULD or SHOULD NOT have in order to be ethical, but rather, describe characteristics that it would be laudatory for the research to have.  Is that a fair characterization, or have I misinterpreted?

Perhaps I can raise the same question in a slightly different way. When I first was reading the document, I was thinking of the following scenario:

Imagine that faculty member A levels a charge with their dean that faculty member B’s child development research is unethical because it fails to meet the profession’s standards for ethical research.  The dean asks A for a copy of the profession’s ethical principles and standards so that the dean can use those principles and standards to help guide the response to A's claim. “A” provides the dean with the SRCD Ethical Principles and Standards document  Would it, at that point, be proper for B to tell the dean that the SRCD Principles and Standards document cannot be used for this purpose?

I should mention that my reason for following up with you regarding this question is that, based upon discussions I’ve had with a number of other academics, I have reason to believe that my initial assumptions about the purpose of the document are shared by many others, so I thought it might be helpful to bring this issue very clearly to the attention of the governing council as it works on revisions to the document.

Thanks

Best

Rob

[I did not receive a reply to my April 23, 2021 email – but did not really expect to.  I do not think any of my questions in any of my emails were answered, and I remain mystified about the purpose of the “Ethical Principles and Standards”.]

The Gad Saad nobody knows