Task 2:
So, you have been shown 2 different methods of investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children.
Which do you think is the best and why?
Everyone must choose a study – B or C and then explain why they have chosen this study with reference to detail from the study.
Post your answers as a comment about this thread.
Experiment B, although a good way of reaching the aim of “investigating the possibility that ADHD is an inherited disorder”, it is highly unethical, highly costly, very unfeasible and very time consuming! Despite this, it would be a good way of determining whether or not ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder as the 5 sets of mono zygotic twins have been observed for 9 years in a field experiment, so the researchers have gathered huge amounts of data; Using this method, the results of the experiment would be more conclusive than that of Experiment C. On the other hand, Experiment B is a bad because the subjects did not give informed consent to the researchers, which is unacceptable because the experiment involves doing something which would not otherwise happen in “normal life”. Furthermore the participants did receive a debriefing, the participants were hugely deceived for 9 years and lead into thinking that their foster parents were their biological parents and that the “study” was real life. Also there is no mention that the participants have any confidentiality, protection and they weren’t told that they had the right to stop participating in the study.
In conclusion, Experiment B is definitely not the better experiment because of the moral and ethical dilemmas. Taking mono zygotic twins away from their parents, even with their consent, for a 9 year ADHD trial is highly unethical because the trauma of meeting their biological parents after 9 years would be life altering. They would need huge amounts of therapy because the first 9 years of their lives has been a sham!
Experiment C, therefore, is obviously the better experiment because it has next-to-no moral issues and the method is to give a set of semi-structured questions to a sample of volunteers who have twins where at least one has been officially diagnosed with ADHD by an educational psychologist. These questions should “ascertain information such as whether the twins have displayed similar behaviors, from what age, and also information from the parents about their behaviors and the possibility of them having ADHD”. This method involves no moral issues which makes it simpler. Moreover, this experiment does inform the participants of their right to withdraw from the investigation, and if they wish to do so, it says to not to send back the questionnaire. The method does also give the participants protection has a questionnaire is unlucky to cause stress. Furthermore, the method gives the participants confidentiality as it says “each questionnaire will be labeled with a case number rather than a name”. However, if Experiment C were to be an actual experiment, the results would not be as conclusive as Experiment B because of the flaws with C’s method; A questionnaire is not the best way to determine whether the children have ADHD because even if the children are showing the behaviors of ADHD, this isn’t a conclusive diagnosis of the disorder. Despite this, Experiment C is still the better experiment because although the experiment does have it’s flaws, it would still work in investigating whether ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder.
In conclusion, Experiment C is the better experiment because it’s method reaches the aim, i has next-to-no moral issues (unlike B), it’s simple, not as time consuming as Experiment B and wouldn’t cost as much. Unlike B, C gives the participants the option to withdraw the data they supplied, it gives confidentiality and the researchers give the participants protection as the questionnaire is unlikely to cause stress, embarrassment or discomfort.
In experiment B there is no way to withdraw from the investigation as the participants because they don’t know that they are participating in the study. However at that age the parents would have given consent for the children. However, in Study C, they have the full right to withdraw at any point within a month or so; this is so because in the month after the study the researchers are still anaylsing the data. Basically they can withdraw the info they have provided up until the point of publication.
As well as this, the participants in experiment C had given informed consent because they were recruited as volunteers; a poster advertised the experiment. In experiment B, Informed consent was given by the biological parents, and not by the children, because they had just been born, so the next of kin had to give consent for them. But because it was the children who were the participants and not the parents, I will assume that no informed consent was given.
The participants in Experiment C were not harmed psychologically nor physically and in actual fact the experiment could be seen as help for the participants, who had only recently discovered they had ADHD. In Study B, we cannot safely say that the participants were caused no harm as we don’t know what happened on that island, but, we can safely say that by taking children away from their biological parents for 9 years will lead to family and psychological issues.
Both experiment B and C debrief the participants at the end of the experiment. This is very important as experiment B involves very high levels of deception
All researchers involved in both of the studies were fully trained and competent, which is good because untrained researchers would have meant the experiment wouldn’t be valid because they wouldn’t know what they were doing.
Finally, in experiment C there was no deception involved in the experiment as it was quite straight forward, and all participants knew exactly what was happening and why they were doing it. But in experiment B, there were extremely high levels of deception involved as participants were unaware that the experiment was happening, and the first 9 years of their lives were basically a lie.
Experiment C is better as the parents are able to withdrawal themselves from the experiment therefore providing protection of participants and doesn’t cause any harm, embarrassment or offence to those involved. It is also an easy way to gather information from both the children and parents, and the information gathered will be easy to assess on once it is collected. The experiment is also confidential as the questionnaire is labelled with a case number rather than a name. Information is also provided on the poster explaining the purpose and what it involves and where the data will be used, making sure the volunteers understand exactly what is happening. However the information collected is through a questionnaire which may not be seen as reliable due to questions answered or interpreted incorrectly.
However, experiment B also has its pros and cons. It may be seen as a better experiment as you are able to see the behavior of the children with ADHD and without ADHD through real life footage and can compare the results as they are both provided with identical environments but it is also bad as the children are not told about the experiment or that their foster parents are not their biological parents so therefore contains deception as they were not informed about the investigation fully and after 9 years will have to face a huge change when they return to their parents.
Overall, i think that experiment C is better due to the fact that you are still able to collect evidence that will determine whether the twins have ADHD without causing any distress to the children but also provides support for family and education, whereas experiment B doesn’t provide all the information needed and may cause upset to the children as they believe that their biological parents are their foster parents.
In experiment B there is no way to withdraw from the investigation as the participants dont know the experiment is being held. However, the biological parents gave the consent for their children to take part, but the children were too young to understand what was happening. This investigation could cause the relationship between the children and parents to be disrupted and the stress or upset may stay with them for a long time after the experiment has finished. The participants are later debriefed as they are told the truth about the experiment after and are sent back to their biological parents, but distress is caused to the subjects through deception as the researches havent been as truthful as possible, which has affected the overall outcome of the participants.
Experiment C is better because unlike experiment B, the volunteers know where they stand as they have been debriefed so they know they can withdraw from the experiment whenever they want. It is also an easy way to gather information from both the children and parents because they all work or live in the local area. In experiment C the researches explain all the little details which help the voulunteers to trust the researchers. Also each questionnaire is labelled with a case number rather than a name. This will enable the subjects to feel more protected.
Looking at experiment B I think it is unethical to take the children with ADHD to an island without their biological parents and place them with foster parents. Despite the experiment being expensive and lasting for 9 years, it would prove the possibility that ADHD was a genetically inherited disorder. Also it would make the source more reliable as the experiment lasts for a long time. Despite there being advantages in experiment B I think there is more disadvantages for instance there was deception because they did not know what they were doing on the island, for this reason they were unable to give informed consent, and unable to receive a debrief from the researchers.
Overall I think experiment C is better because it is a safer option because each questionnaire was labelled with a case number rather than a name, this would make the volunteers feel more confident in what they were writing and they would feel like they have more protection. Also the questionnaires would be easier to collect because they are all from the same area.
The questionnaires in experiment C give a much broader analysis because they were filled in by people from different age brackets. Although there being advantages in both experiments I still believe that the experiment C is better.
Although Experiment B is a field experiment, and therefore has more ecological validity, I feel that Experiment C is the better option due to ethical reasons.
For example, in Experiment B, although the twin’s biological parents would have given consent for their children to take part in the experiment, the subjects themselves were too young to understand what was happening. When a debrief is later given to the subjects, they are sent back to their biological parents. However, as they have grown up with different parents, having been separated from their biological parents from a young age, the Subjects relationship with their parents, and their twin that they hadn’t known they’d had may be altered or ruined. ‘Separating twins at birth’ means that for the first nine years of their lives they won’t know any of their family, and mothers will miss important parts of their children’s lives, such as birthdays, Christmases, first steps and wobbly teeth. There is also the chance of Subjects growing up with (apart from ADHD if the experiment shows positive results which may make it harder for the Biological parents to cope) certain mental conditions such as Anxiety due to having grown up in a false environment and their lives being ‘controlled’. This feeling may stay with them even after the experiment has stopped. In Experiment B there has also been low protection of participants as although not purposefully put in physical dangers, if the Experiment shows positive results the Experiment has purposefully put Subjects at high risk of developing ADHD which they may not have otherwise developed, as well as causing distress to Subjects through Deception and no way of withdrawing from the investigation as they didn’t know what was going on. However, the experiment does provide Confidentiality to Subjects, and all names have been left out.
Experiment C, whilst providing protection of Participants, Confidentiality and the option to withdraw from the investigation, provides no form of deception, making it overall a more ethical experiment. Subjects who did the questionnaire’s gave informed consent and in debriefing any Subjects who had been diagnosed with ADHD were ‘offered support, both in terms of family life or educational’ making this experiment much more beneficial for the child. However, there is always the chance that questionnaires are filled out wrong, therefore receiving a wrong diagnosis.
In study B, participants are unaware of the experiment they are participating in, and therefore cannot withdraw at any time (mainly due to the fact that they don’t know they’re participating in anything). However, in Study C, they have the full right to withdraw at any point within a reasonable time period. This is usually before the period of analyising the data and it’s publication.
As well as this, people in Experiment C had also given informed consent as participants were found on a voulnteer basis. In experiment B, Informed consent was given by the biological parents of the twins, but not by the twins themselves as they were only babies and didn’t know what was going on. As it is the twins that are participating in this experiment, I feel its safe to say that there was no Informed Consent given.
No harm or distress, whether it be pychological or physical came to the participants in Study C, and in fact support was provided for families discovered to have an ADHD diagnosis. In Study B, no harm came to them during to actual experiment, but by taking children away from their biological parents for a total of 9years may lead to family and psycological damamge or distress. As well as this, if it is found that ADHD is a learnt problem, then the chances are you’re giving them an illness that they need not have to begin with…
Both studies contained no personal details of participants within their published findings, an d participant’s weren’t traceable.
As well as this, both Studies fully debriefed the participants at the end of the experiments, although I would argue that at 9years old, Participants in experiment C wouldn’t have fully understood, which may have caused distress.
All reasearchers were fully trained and compitent.
Lastly, in experiment B, there was an extreme level of deception involved as participants were unaware that the experiment was happening, and their whole, memorable lives had been pretty much built around the experiment. However, in experiment C there was no deception involved, and all participants knew exactly what was happening and why they were doing this, ensuring that they were happy to participate in the experiment.
Experiment B could be seen as the better experiment as the children are unaware of the experiment it means the children taking part would not be acting out of character and you can then compare these results with the other children growing up in the same environment so the overall results will be more accurate. The overall result would also be more accurate as it is done over a long period of time, however some people may say it is cruel to take the children away from the parents and twin for that long and then force them back into an environment with them once they are done with the experiment as it could lead to further behaviour issues due to the deception their life was based around. They may also not adjust to life with a twin and different parents.
Experiment C could be seen as the worse of the experiment as the people answering the semi-structured questionnaire may not be given the right information as not everyone is truthful on questionnaires. It is also done by people who want to be involved so the majority of the population needed to complete the questionnaire could be missed out, this leads to experiment B being more accurate.
However despite this I would say experiment C is the better experiment due to the fact that the lives of the people involved are not affected. What I mean by this is that there is no deception so the people taking part no exactly what is happening as do the people with ADHD unlike experiment B, where deception is needed to get the degree accuracy. In experiment C they can also withdraw after the questionnaire if needed so the people taking part are the ones in control and they are not being spied on and given no privacy. This is not the case in experiment B as the children are forced to take part and then put into a new environment at the age of 9.
In experiment B you could say that the confidentiality is not there as every adult who comes in to contact with the children are aware a study is going on. However in C they are given a questionnaire which is labelled with a number rather than their details so we could say they confidentiality. Due to this we could also say they are protected as the questionnaire would not be linked back to them once they have finished the questionnaire. Unlike experiment B where adults who lived near them would have known they were in the experiment so would be able to trace the experiment results back to them if the adults were looking at the results. When the children in experiment B are given a debrief before they are taken back to their biological parents. However this doesn’t mean that the kids won’t be upset by what happened to them as the parents have lied to them and they have not given consent. In experiment C the parents are informed of the results and are then offered support in family life and education. This means that if they are feeling stressed after the study they are given the right after care.
In theory, experiment B would be the most effective way of determining whether ADHD could be inherited since the study allows more accurate results to be collected due to the deception of the patients. It is because of this deception – the children not knowing that they are part of an experiment, nor that they are being raised by surrogate parents in a orchastrated environment – that the possibility of reactivity from the subjects is eradicated. Also the experiment is 24/7 for the first 9 years of the subject’s life, allowing the researchers to not only monitor the development of the subjects first hand but also to gather the results directly from the subjects, rather than in experiment C where the researchers rely on the information given to them through someone else. This ensures accuracy of the results.
However, this experiment would never be practised because of many reasons, such as the high costs involved and the almost impossibilty of a child being cut off from today’s world. However the main reason this experiment is just not possible is because of the ethics involved. Firstly, in no way has the participent been given any consent of any kind, since they were too young to at the time (the subjects were taken as newborns.) The study does not say whether it considers the protection of the participents, but part of this is making sure that they are ‘protected from physical or mental harm.’ Surely an experiment where a child is taken from their own parents and their childhood completely planned in the name of a scientific experiment must have some mental health repercussions?
For these reasons experiment C would be a much more likely alternative. Although the results can not be guaranteed as accurate, since you’re relying on the subject’s word in the questionnaire, morally it is much more acceptable since they give full consent to be included in the study, and even at a later date they can choose to withdraw by not sending in the questionnaire.
The subjects are also given confidentiality by labelling them with a case number rather than using their names.
So, although experiment B would be the ‘best’ based on the accuracy of results, I personally think experiment C is the best considering the ethics involved, the costs and the overall actual likelihood of the experiment working.
Firstly, in no way has the participant been given any consent of any kind, since they were too young to at the time (the subjects were taken as newborns.) This means that the participant does not have the choice to not be in the study, so it is forcing him/her to do something that he/she does not want to be involved in.
…more acceptable since they give full consent to be included in the study, and even at a later date they can choose to withdraw by not sending in the questionnaire. This gives them the option to not be included in the study if by chance they feel intimidated by it, or for any other reason that they do not want to be involved.
The subjects are also given confidentiality by labelling them with a case number rather than using their names. This gives them anonymity, which avoides embarrasing the participants if they do not wish for their personal details to be shared.
Study B would be a more effective way of determining whether ADHD is genetically inherited because the subjects are unaware of the fact that they are being tested and therefore will act completely naturally to any situations they are faced with and therefore give more accurate results.
However the study raises severe ethical issues due to the fact that twins are separated at birth and also from their biological parents and lead an isolated life. This means they don’t have equal opportunities compared to other children in the world and also have their lives controlled. The subjects don’t give any consent and aren’t debriefed at the end of the study, therefore leaving them with no explanation as to why they are separated from their foster parents, who the subjects have most likely grown up believing are their real parents, and returned to their biological parents who would appear as complete strangers. This would mean that the subjects would be completely deceived and wouldn’t be protected from distress.These factors would make the study extremely difficult to carry out plus the thought of costs and trying to keep the media away from the subjects.
Study C is a more ethical way of carrying out the experiment as the subjects are debriefed before the study and are given a questionnaire instead of carrying out drastic measures, also the subjects can decide that they don’t want to return their questionnaires if they become uncomfortable or change their mind which means they are protected from distress. However it is these reasons that make the study less likely to be accurate because there is a lack of control and knowing that their children could be diagnosed with ADHD may cause parents to answer the questionnaire differently.
In conclusion Study B is a more effective way of determining whether ADHD is genetically inherited in theory because it is more controlled and the subjects aren’t debriefed at all which means they won’t behave differently to alter the results of the study, however the ethical issues it raises makes it difficult to carry out.
Experiment B doesn’t consider ethical guidelines very carefully as the subjects cannot give consent as they are only newborns when they take part and are deceived for their entire lives. They also have no awareness of their right to withdraw from the experiment because are oblivious to the fact that they are involved in one. However the study is run by trained officials, therefore the children are in authorised hands. The protection of the participants is also not considered as the children would become emotionally distressed after being taken away from their adoptive parents who they have grown up to believe are their parents. The study doesn’t suggest any evidence of the participants being debriefed and this would also add to their distress. There is no mention of the children’s identities so it is probably likely that this remains anonymous as media attention after being taken away from their adoptive parents would distress the children further.
Experiment C however considers ethical guidelines more carefully as the subjects are fully aware of what the questionnaire holds and therefore don’t have to be debriefed and are not deceived. They are told of their right to withdraw and that they will remain anonymous. The participants aren’t open to any stress and therefore are protected as they also know that any information they give under consent will be used by a trained psychologist.
When investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children, experiment B will give the better results, but experiment C is more ethical and therefore better in a more ethical society.
Experiment B would give better results because it happens over a long period of time (the first 9 years of a child’s a life). Therefore the information can be collected correctly directly from the source and monitored by researchers. It also means there is more of a selection of results as the child will be monitored continuously, this will provide clear, unbiased results for the investigation. Where as in Experiment C the parents give the information to the researchers about the child and it could be over and under exaggerated. This means the researchers can clearly see for themselves the way the children behave.
Nowadays we live in a very ethical based society which means we are always aware of what is morally right or wrong, which is why experiment C would be ethically better as it is not using the children at all for the information. If the tests come back positive, everyone is offered support in education and family life. Experiment B is unethical because the child is taken away for 9 years from their biological family and lead to believe they are an only child and the foster parents are biological parents. The child is not told about the experiment or given a choice in being part of it. The child is then given back to the biological parents, this has untold negative ethical effects on emotional growth including being scared, confused, lost, hate, distrust of parents and the services, to also finding out there is another child just like you. It is starting a completely new life at the age of 9. This experiment would also raise an issue around the foster parents who are unaware of the whole picture.
Both studies B and C help us to reliably investigate the inheritance of ADHD in children, however I do feel that study B, although being a more valid study due to the long duration and unawareness of the subjects, is completely unethical and therefore inferior to study C. This is because although consent has been given by the biological parents, the indiviual subjects are not able to understand the consept and implications of this experient at such a young age. The experiment also seems as if it has taken away the freedom of the children, not by restricting their lifestyles but by abstaining them from the truth, which will cause them problems later in life and therefore it is not protecting the participants to a suitable standard. The participants were also brought up for nine years into thinking that their foster parents were their biological parents, naturally, in knowing this the child will form a connection with its foster parents overtime and so when the nine years have passed and they are debriefed, the subjects will feel cheated and used, this again is a breech of ethical guidelines.
Study C however is a much more humane and ethical approach to meeting the aims of the investigation. This is because the subjects are voluntry, and in writing the aims and methods of the experiment on the advertisement, the subjects and volunteers understand what they are going to be participating in. Also by giving the subjects a choice of withdrawing at any point, the study is not restricting the freedom of the participants. However we could argue that although being a more ethical approach, the results will not be as valid and reliable as those of study B as the researchers in study B have a longer period to analyse the subjects and develop a set of reliable results without affecting the experiment with the complications of the subjects wanting to withdraw.
In conclusion I think that study C is the better method, this is mainly due to the lack of ethical issues, but also because it gives reliable results from the subjects parents, teachers and doctors, as well as having a set of results from the final scientific experiments.
As a result of the subjects not being aware of the experiment in B, their ability to withdraw has almost been withdrawn from them, this means that the subjects are not able to back out of the experiment when they feel the need to do so and therefore is another breach of the ethical guidelines. The children’s identities in the description remained anonymous which gives the subjects privacy, this follows the guidelines, and as well as this, the researchers and scientists conducting the experiment are fully trained and have experience in this field.
Study C is a far more ethical approach than study B, this is because the participants left the experiment in the same physical and mental state as when they entered, therefore the participants are being fully protected. The experiment’s description also states that “each questionnaire will be labelled with a case number rather than a name” this protects the identity of the participants and therefore their privacy remains. There is no mention of a debrief, however in the brief previous to the experiment, everything involved is revealed and it is made clear that the participants are not being deceived in any way. Finally, the experiment is run by experienced and reliable researchers and scientists, so the competency of the experiment is at a high standard.
When investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children, both experiment B and experiment C produced a set of results. I believe that experiment B produced the most reliable results; however, I strongly feel that experiment C is more ethically correct, hence my decision in saying that experiment C is the best for the investigation taking place.
Some may argue that experiment B will give better and a more reliable set of results as the process of examination takes place over a long period of time. This allows any data that gets collected to be reliable and pure as the children being tested on, will be unaware of the experiment taking place due to their young age. Benefits of this include the fact that the investigation will produce unbiased results making it easier to form a conclusion at the end of the 9 year process. In contrast to these previous points, experiment B provides a large number of issues with the ethics behind the experiment.
Due to the children being entered into the process at such a young and tender age, they are unable to express their feelings towards the procedure. This takes away the choice that every child has the right to make. It also reinstates that these children are unable to put forward their beliefs and standup for their rights.
As the children grow up, they will become wiser without knowing the truth behind to their real family and the tests that are taking place behind their back. Not only does this seem unfair and cruel, but it also presents the child with the mindset that lying is acceptable. By doing this, it also holds future implications for when the child/children get older and are faced with the truth. It could cause problems with the relationship between the child and biological parents as well as the child and its foster parents. This is an example of not protecting the participants to a suitable standard followed by the realisation that deception has occurred.
By option C being voluntary, it means that the people signing up for the experiment are aware of what they are letting themselves in for, without any secrets hidden away. The advertisement clearly states what is included in the process which proves that there is informed consent, a debrief and lastly, it prevents deception. Experiment C could produce less reliable results but the safety of the child/children in the long run is more important.
For these reasons, in conclusion, I think that experiment C is the most appropriate method as it is more humane and ethical while still meeting the aims and purpose for the investigation. In conclusion I think that study C is the better method.
When investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children, both experiment B and experiment C produced a set of results. I believe that experiment B produced the most reliable results; however, I strongly feel that experiment C is more ethically correct, hence my decision in saying that experiment C is the best for the investigation taking place. There was no informed consent throughout the testing of ADHD – this meant that the results wouldn’t have been effected in a biased or unbiased way – however they are ethically not right. When investigating a situation, it is key that the ethical guidelines are met.
Some may argue that experiment B will give better and a more reliable set of results as the process of examination takes place over a long period of time. This allows any data that gets collected to be reliable and pure as the children being tested on, will be unaware of the experiment taking place due to their young age. Benefits of this include the fact that the investigation will produce unbiased results making it easier to form a conclusion at the end of the 9 year process. In contrast to these previous points, experiment B provides a large number of issues with the ethics behind the experiment.
Due to the children being entered into the process at such a young and tender age, they are unable to express their feelings towards the procedure. This takes away the choice that every child has the right to make. This breaches the ethical guideline of being able to withdraw from the experiment as they were unaware of the test they were involved in. It also reinstates that these children are unable to put forward their beliefs and standup for their rights.
As the children grow up, they will become wiser without knowing the truth behind to their real family and the tests that are taking place behind their back. Not only does this seem unfair and cruel, but it also presents the child with the mindset that lying is acceptable. By doing this, it also holds future implications for when the child/children get older and are faced with the truth. By debriefing the participants after, there could cause problems with the relationship between the child and biological parents as well as the child and its foster parents. This is an example of not protecting the participants to a suitable standard followed by the realisation that deception has occurred. By option C being voluntary, it means that the people signing up for the experiment are aware of what they are letting themselves in for, without any secrets hidden away. The advertisement clearly states what is included in the process which proves that there is informed consent, a debrief and lastly, it prevents deception. Experiment C could produce less reliable results but the safety of the child/children in the long run is more important. For these reasons, in conclusion, I think that experiment C is the most appropriate method as it is more humane and ethical while still meeting the aims and purpose for the investigation. In conclusion I think that study C is the better method.
In my opinion, I believe that Study B would provide a better outcome as it has a larger time period, allowing time to gather as much information as possible from the experiment. This experiment is also more likely to be reliable as in this method the twins are taken from birth and brought up in a controlled environment, where they can be assessed daily for 9 years. Therefore, it is probably more beneficial for the investigators to do this process. However, from the table it is definitely an unethical investigation in many different categories.
Consequently, I think that Study C is the best method of investigating the inheritance of ADHD in twins. Although it lacks in imagination, it is an ethical and a morally correct procedure. Depending on the creativity of the questions, I believe that you could still gather as much information as in Study B. In Study C, the investigation is obviously more simple and could potentially not be as effective but it still allows for informed consent as the study is advertised. Meaning that it gives the possible participants information and the purpose of the study – it is up to them to accept. Study C also performs a debrief. This is unlike Study B where the twins do not know they have taken part in an experiment and never will, so they have no choice but to accept. They are also being deceived throughout the whole experiment as there is a chance that their characteristics might change, which is morally wrong because they are being misled.
In conclusion, I think that Study C is the best method because it stays within the guidlines. Finally, for it to be as effective as possible, it purely depends on the creativity of the questions asked and what kind of people it attracts.
Study C would be the best method of investingating the inheritance of ADHD in twins. This is because, unlike Study B, it stays within the guidelines set. This ensures that the study is ethical and not breaking any of the guidelines set which, if broken could potentially harm and upset the participants. Although it may not be as creative as Study B, the participant’s welfare is kept in mind.
Study C first explains that the procedure involves an advertisement in local hospitals asking for any sets of where at least one of the twins has been diagnosed with ADHD. This provides the participant with the choice to accept or decline the decision to take part in the study. Showing that they have to give informed consent to take part, meaning they know what the study is about and have chosen to continue. This is unlike Study B where the participant is unable to accept because he/she was taken from birth and would be unable to make that sort of decision due to them being too young. The ‘foster parents’ are the only ones who could give infomed consent – which they have,
In both studies the participants are protected, In study C no harm is caused to the participants as they are in a safe environment where the danger risk is very low. Also the experiment involves nothing dangerous as it is only a questionnaire. No distress is caused either becuase both participants know what they have to do; nothing is a suprise. Also, it is a written questionnaire, reducing the chance of distress/embarrassment. Similarly in Study B, the participants are protected as it is the foster parents’ role to ensure the participants live like they are not in an experiment but in everyday life. However, by the age of 9, it is inevitable that the 9 year olds will receive pain and distress because they will be informed that the previous 9 years was an experiment and the people they had been living and growing up with are not their real family. It is very likely that the participans will be very distressed after that.
During Study C, if the participants wish to withdraw they do not have to send back their questionnaires and nothing further will be done with the information. This is ensuring that the participants do this within a reasonable time limit. This shows that the participants are protected and are given the right to decide the future of their data. Unlike Study B, where again, as the participants are unaware that they’re being watched and taking part in experiment there is virtually no chance they would be able to withdraw. Again, the foster parents are the only people with the right to make that decision, it is highly unlikely that they will.
Both studies stay within the guidelines when debriefing. At the end of Study C the parents will be informed as to the result of the diagnosis and offered support. Showing, that the parents are debriefed as they are given the results an explaining the study by offering support. This ensures the participants fully understand what the results of the study mean. In Study B the participants are debriefed at the end of the 9 years. This is where a final diagnosis will be determined via normal ADHD testing procedures. This will allow for an explanation of the study during the debrief where the results of the study and the final diagnosis can be discussed so the participants fully understand what the previous 9 years were for.
Anonymity is kept in both studies. In study C each questionaire is labelled with a casrr number rather than a name. Allowing for the participants to remain unknown, which some prefer. This is the same in Study B where pseudonyms are chosen for the subjects and each twin is labelled A and B. This is virtually similar to Study B where everyone involved is anonymous. Each researcher is trained in each study. As in Study B a team of trained researchers observe the children’s behaviour via hidden CCTV cameras and in Study C it is done in ahospital where everyone working there will be trained.
Finally, in Study C, the participants know exaclty what is happening as it is advertised and they weregiven informed consent. Meaning the participants were not deceived because they were in no way wrongly informed. However, in Study B, the participants were. Because they were taken from birth, they could not be given any informed consent. Meaning that when they grew up they lived to believe that thy were living an ordinary life with their actually parents. They were strongly deceived because that was not the case – they wereliving as part of an experiment which could cause huge amounts of distress. However, if the participants were told the truth, the study would not be as effective as the participants would be inclined to act differently because they know they are being watched. In this case, deception as neccessary.
Overall, Study C was the best method of investigating inheritance of ADHD in twins. This is because the study stayed within the guidelines, ensuring that it was a safe study that would be approved of. Unlike Study B where the majority of it is unethical and morally wrong. Although, it would have got the better outcome with more reliable results, it would not be allowed to take place.
In my opinion, C is the best method for investigating the inheritance of ADHD. There are many reasons why I chose option C over B.
Firstly, the questionnaire is confidential and therefore participants feel no pressure to answer the questions truthfully. Secondly, a questionnaire would not take up much of your time and this means that families with a history of ADHD would be willing to spend time helping scientific research that they are familiar with. Thirdly, the parents are fully aware of what they are involved in, and if at any time want to refrain from being part of the instigation can. Lastly, I think the research done using this method would not only be useful, but reliable too.
The reason that I did not choose option B was due to the depth. This experiment seemed like it was thought out too carefully and is less believable than C. The procedure is a strong idea however I don’t think parents would want their children to go and live with another set of parents that they have never met themselves, from birth until the age of 9. Furthmeroe, the biological parents have no contact with their children and the twins (who have been separated) do not know that the people they are living with are not their real family. Not only does option B take a long time, but it could cause problems with the parents as they cannot withdraw from the investigation.
In conclusion, I decided that option C was the best way of investigating ADHD as it is more patient friendly and could result in more reliable results. Sending children away from their parents is not something I agree with, and 9 years for an experiment that may not show results that were needed would be a waste of time. One of the main reasons that C is better than B would be the cost. Questionnaires are cheap to produce whereas sending children abroad to live with another family, different culture and lifestyle would become expensive. Option C, for me, would show useful results and be an investigation that more people would be prepared to be part of.
There are many ethical reasons both for and against each of the studies.
Study B does not mention anonymity however the children and families should be protected because media could distress them further. There is no harm or distress caused but it is cruel and wrong to take children away from their parents from a young age. The children are not debriefed about the study as they are too young to understand, yet the parents have agreed to send them away. Whilst away from their parents, the children are in capable hands as trained researchers are constantly watching over them (the children do not actually come in contact with these researchers). The experiment could lead to issues afterwards due to the deception that their life was based around.
Option C allows participants to withdraw from the research after the questionnaire if they want to. There is no deception involved in this study and therefore people are fully aware of the procedure – this means no lives are affected or changed after completing the questionnaire. The participants give their consent and are fully aware of what the data they have given is being used for. Researchers in this study are experts and understand the data that they are dealing with.
I believe both experiments have their pro’s and con’s, if someone were to investigate the inheritance of ADHD in children, I would urge them to choose experiment C.
Although experiment B would most likely produce more accurate results, due to the wider time span of nine years, the variables controlled (all subjects being raised in identical environments) to ensure that potential outside factors won’t contribute to the results, and the deception used so the subjects do not act differently to what they would naturally, the experiment goes against almost everything in the ethical guideline.
The subjects are unaware of the experiment taking place, so they were unable to withdraw if they wanted, nor were they able to give their consent; they were deceived to believe that their foster parents were biological and therefore formed bonds with them, grew up with them, experienced the most important developmental years of their lives with them and finally (protection of participants) at the age of NINE are told that all of their life was one big experiment, they had been raised as guinea pigs by the people they had loved and are taken out of their “fake” home and placed back into their “real” family, with the twin they never knew they had and two strangers they would now have to call mum and dad. All of this would have a huge impact on an adult, let alone a small child! Aside from the ethical issues, experiment B is very expensive; what with the technical equipment used to monitor the subjects behavior and the cost of raising 20 children, it is not very practical.
For those reasons, experiment C is the better of the two. It doesn’t break any of the ethical guidelines, the subjects are allowed to withdraw from the experiment at any point and are aware of exactly what the experiment consists of before giving their consent. It is also a lot cheaper and a lot more practical than experiment B, using questionnaires. Admittedly, the questionnaires would not give as accurate results as being monitored and then tested after 9 years, but the protection of the participants and the other ethical issues raised in experiment B are more important.
Study B has the most ethical issues out of the two. For starters, the children are unaware that they are taking part in an experiment and therefore their right to withdraw has been taken away from them, they were also unable to give informed consent as the experiment started at birth. There is a great deal of elaborate deception used- their childhood up until the age of 9 is basically a lie- which is almost certainly going to cause the participants severe emotional distress. The children are, however, given a debrief at the end of the experiment, but being only 9 years old, it is unlikely that they will fully understand it; they also maintain confidentiality as they are referred to as “A” and “B” in reports. In conclusion, experiment B basically breaks every aspect of the ethical guidelines.
Study C however, is the complete opposite. The participants give informed consent when they fill out their survey, and they are completely aware of what the experiment entails as they volunteered by answering a newspaper advertisement, therefore there is no deception used. They are told that they are able to withdraw from the experiment at any point, the nature of the experiment is unlikely to cause any distress, and the experimenters are all experts and know what they are doing.
Both, experiment B and experiment C aim to successfully fufil the aim of this case study (to investigate the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder). However they both do so on very different levels. Experiment B focuses on the upbringing of the children, in which they are monitored in identical environments for a period of 9 years with no outside factors effecting them and without their biological parents. On the other hand experiment C focuses on volunteers who are fully aware of the case study before starting the experiment and who also have full control to withdraw at any given point. The main idea of this experiment being that teachers, parents etc of the volunteers answer set questions to ascertain information about similar behaviours.
Experiment B may seem like the stronger of the 2 experiements because of the long period of time to stimulate more accurate results. Also the children are less likely to act out of character as they are unaware of the experiment. Having the two sets of twins (A and B) growing up in identical environments with real life footage means that it is very easy to compare behaviour patterns. However the huge downfall of experiment B is the moral issues it arrises. To keep children away from their biological parents for a total of 9 years could be seen as very cruel, this may also lead to problems when they are finally reunited. To be forced back into a different environment when they return could have a negative effect on the children.
For these reasons, i believe that experiment C is the better experiment: the people who are involved are fully aware as to what is going on and if at any point they dont want to continue they do not have to. Also, their personal day to day lives are not effected this is improtant for the protection of the participants. The surveys are a quick, simple way to compare results and they come from a variety of people- not just the twins parents. This creates a clearer view of the twins behaviour and symptoms of adhd. Althought the experiment has faults (such as the questions not being answered in the correct way or being interpreted differently and also it only being taken by a selected amount of people rather than a variety) i think the positives overlook them.
The participants do not have the right to withdraw in study B as they are forced into the environment for 9 years. The twins believe this is there lifestyle and therefore don’t understand that they can leave the environment to be with their biogical parents. However the parents do have the right to withdraw there children bearing in mind they have already given informed consent. On the other hand, in study C they can withdraw if they choose too and they are not being forced to take part.
The biological parents in study B would have given informed consent before the study started however the children obviously have no say as they are too young. For study C it is done by people who want to be involved and therefore chose to answer the questionnaire. This means they are giving informed consent when they answer the survey.
To keep the children away from their biological parents for a total of 9 years could be seen as very cruel this can cause harm and distress afterwards. When the children are finally reunited with their parents they could feel uncomfortable. However in study C there is protection of participants because they are not being caused any harm or distress; the questions are based around the behaviours of the children and if the participants didn’t feel comfortable answering they don’t have too.
The participants were fully debriefed afterwards in study B however some people may argue that it is too late as the twins have now missed 9 years of their life. In study C the guardians will be informed on the diagnosis of their children and therefore given a full debrief with extra support offered.
The whole of study B is based around deception as the children are not aware of what is going on and have lived in a fake environment for a long period of time. This is not the case for study C because the participants are fully aware of what is going on and therefore there is no kind of deception.
The study has clear competency as the researchers watch the participants and analyse their behaviour for signs of ADHD. As they have right to withdraw the information can be given to the parents If they decide they no longer want to continue with the study.
Both experiments achieve what they’re trying to prove but each have their ups and downs. I have chosen to study experiment C; this is because experiment B has many ethical issues. Some of the problems with experiment B include separating the twins at birth. This could lead to a torn future knowing that they have no idea who their brother or sister is. Another issue is that the children being investigated will have no idea that they’re being watched. The final issue is that the adults who come into contact with the children also have no idea that the children are being examined. However, this experiment has its pro’s. With this experiment it does prove the aim of the investigation. It proves that ADHD is genetically inherited because it test nature versus nurture.
The advantages of experiment C are that the volunteers have agreed to take part in the experiment and understand that the results will be used for research. The volunteers also are given the opportunity to drop out of the experiment when they like so they have more of a choice. Another pro to this experiment is that the participants will know that no names will be used so they have no fear of their names being used. Also experiment C has no moral issues as its just a survey. The disadvantages to the experiment are that the volunteers could purposely answer the questions falsely. Or they could make a mistake in the survey and change the results. They also may be reluctant to share the information about their behaviours and wont be prepared to share information about themselves as it may be embarrassing. Its very subjective as what is normal for one family may not be for another family.
In conclusion experiment C triumphs over experiment B, as the the cons of B out ways the pros. The main issue is that its unethical to separate twins at birth. Whereas, experiment C has no moral complications and is simpler to perform.
Experiment C is the better method of receiving results as to whether or not ADHD is genetically inherited because it is generally more feasible. As well as this there are no moral complications as the survey keeps to ethical guidelines. Experiment B has the potential to come to more accurate conclusions, however the whole experiment is very unrealistic and unethical.
Experiment C creates an unnatural life for the subjects who are unaware of their involvement in the study and have no say in it. They are also not protected as if the experiment were to create a situation in which a twin developed ADHD under the care of a foster parent with the disorder- then this could cause them distress. This does not reflect on how the child would naturally have developed and may put greater unnecessary complications into their future life. The twins as well as the foster parents are all deceived in experiment C and due to their lack of knowledge about it, they cannot withdraw from the study. Not only are the moral complexities a huge drawback for this experiment, but the expenses and time needed are unlikely to be met.
Experiment B is overall a much easier way of collecting the data, and meets the ethical guidelines. Although results may be more broad and potentially less conclusive- they would represent a wider audience of people. As the participants of the survey are aware of their involvement, are not deceived, and can withdraw at any time, the process is not harmful in any way. The questionnaires are also labelled with case numbers which allows protection for the parents. Furthermore, this method of experiment could go on for however long is necessary for the trends to show and is not an expensive procedure.
Experiment C is ethically the better experiment. The participants are filling out a questionnaire based on their own lives, and are aware of what it will be used for as well as what is being found out (as they will be looking at the questions themselves) so they are able to give informed consent. It is not required that they are debriefed because they have not been decieved and are already aware of their contribution to the experiment. They will be able to withdraw from the survey at any point by not filling it out or not sending their results. The data recieved will be completely anonymous as they will be sorted by number rather than name which protects the participants’ identity. They would also be protected as the survey should not interfere with their lives in any way and they would be in the same emotional and physical state as when before completing it. They are in no way deceived and it would be assumed that the investorgaters dealing with the results are fully trained.althought experiment
On the other hand, althought experiment C may be more capable of achieving accurate results, ethically and morally it is not as viable as experiment B. The participants are not aware of their involvement and therefore cannot give informed consent and are decieved on a great scale, this also means that they at no point can withdraw from the study. Althought the experimentors are likey to be fully trained, the people involved would not be protected as they would leave the experiment in an unfit emotional state. The names of the participants may be anonymous which is protecting them slightly, this would be irrelevent as it would have such a huge imact on their lives that it it would be unlikely to be kept anonymous. They would be debrefed at the end but the impact on the participants’ lives would be so enormous that this makes little difference.
Experiment C is overall the more ethical way of investigating the possibilty that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder.
Expermient B is both unrealistic and unethical. Taking children away from the birth parents at such a young age can cause both physical and mental issues with the child/parents later on in life. Also experiment B requires alot of commitment from the parents and the foster parents as there is no withdrawal from the investigation available wheras for experiment C there is. Finding 2 identical islands for however long will be extremly expensive so this would take years of planning. By this time you could of completed experiment C and still got reliable results at the end of it. The life of children for the first years are crucial and if they were part of experiment B they would be part of an unnatural life so it would cause further problems for them in the future.
Expermient C is a good way of investigating the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder. As it is promoted publicy it means everyone gets a debriefing of whats going on showing that is an ethical way to do things and also will draw more people towards taking part. This means that the experiment can be planned quite quickly which means more reuslts in a short space of time. When filling out the questionares the offer of confidentiaity is there. Subjects do not have to put there name down if they do not wish, they can be reffered to as a case number. Whereas on experiment B nothing like this is available which adds to the reasons of why experiment B is wrong. Subjects can also pull out of this whenever they want so they do not have to be under as much pressure as they would be if taking part in the other experiment.
Although experiment B would probably give more reliable answers, experiment C is still the more easier and ethical way to do things. That is why i think that experiment C is the best way to investigate the possibilty that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder.
Experiment C is overall the more ethical way of investigating the possibilty that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder.
Expermient B is both unrealistic and unethical. Taking children away from the birth parents at such a young age can cause both physical and mental issues with the child/parents later on in life. As you are not fully informing the children on what is actually happening to them you are therefore comitting deception agianst them and this is going agaisnt the ethical guidelines. As children are unaware whats going on this also means they are not getting a clear debreif which could cause them alot of distress and worry in the future this therefore is going against the ethics of the experiment. Also experiment B requires alot of commitment from the parents and the foster parents as there is no withdrawal from the investigation available wheras for experiment C there is.The life of children for the first years are crucial and if they were part of experiment B they would be part of an unnatural life so it would cause further problems for them in the future.
Expermient C is a good way of investigating the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder. As it is promoted publicy it means everyone gets a debriefing of whats going on showing that is an ethical way to do things and also will draw more people towards taking part. As people are volenterring to take part in the experiment they are basically giving there informed consent. When filling out the questionares the offer of confidentiaity is there, subjects are able to be referred to as a number rather than there name whereas this option is not available in experiment B. In experiment C they also have to offer of withdrawel. So if there is anything that they are uncomfortable with they are able to quit the experiment and therefore release the stress that it may cause them.
Overall Experiment C is the better option as it commits to the ethical guidelines alot more than experiment B.
In theory, the concept of experiment B would achieve the best outcome in order for the researchers to determine whether ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder. This is because of the accuracy of the conclusions, due to the deception of the participants; the children being unaware of the circumstances leads to a reliable source of information, as they would not be characterizing themselves. It additionally infers that the subjects would be monitored all day, every day which underlines the idea that the research is first hand and direct; there is no room for misled judgement made by concerned parents. The study also enables a definite number of participants, whereas Experiment C is left for voluntary employment, alluding to a lesser number of contributors. Experiment B is applied over a longer period of time too, in comparison to Experiment C, suggesting a stronger collection of results on which to base a conclusion upon.
Despite the accuracy of the results acquired from Experiment B, it could never be practised. The study itself is a very unethical way to determine whether a child has inherited ADHD from his or her’s biological parents. The participants have access to little knowledge on the base of the experiment, making their individual choices irrelevant to the situation. The study involves no apparent debriefing of the subject’s previous lifestyle on island A or B and accommodates no credible protection of the clients incorporated within the experiment. There is no way for the participants to withdraw from the investigation; this implies the subject’s have been degraded of their opportunity to the right of freedom. Furthermore, the observation would prove to be far too expensive and difficult to set up.
Experiment C is therefore the better study to undertake because, although it may not achieve the optimum results needed, it is honest and ethical to its subjects. The study is confidential and allows withdrawal from the investigation. All participants are voluntary; the subjects understand what they have decided to contribute into. It is also a more feasible way of studying the inheritance of ADHD and courteous to the childhood’s of the younger participants.
Despite the clear ethical flaws in experiment B, I would still say that it gives better results. I say this because more factors of the investigation have been controlled to a great detail in order to rule out a possible environmental argument (TV exposure, who the children meet, animals present etc.). However, in experiment C, it would appear that nothing to this detail has been controlled. Although it is likely some of these factors would be controlled in the questionnaire questions, certain things, such as the level of TV exposure would differ in opinion from person to person. This lack of control to many factors in C means its results lose credibility in my opinion. Both experiments rely on whether related family members have ADHD, a good indicator as to whether it is in fact an inherited condition. C is better in this case, as I would assume they would survey more results, which if a correlation were to appear, would be better for their argument. B however, could be repeated or use more subjects, so this isn’t something which completely flaws the results. C is also stated to have “semi-structured” questions, which indicates the questions may differ from survey to survey and overall reduces the credibility of the results. In experiment B, the subjects become a part of the experiment from birth, however in C; the subjects have already been diagnosed with ADHD before they take part in the questionnaire. This would indicate that any experiences before the children take part in the questionnaire may have an effect on the results, and the fact that it is a questionnaire must be taken into account, as elements such as human error, lying or not understanding the question should be considered. Having said this, B is overall flawed in the UK, as laws would prohibit the researchers from taking the twins at birth, separating them and following through with an investigation which breaks most ethical guidelines set out by the government.
I believe that experiment C is a better of the two ways to investigate the inheritance of ADHD in children. Although experiment B is done over a long period of time which can achieve a better result and more accurate one as there’s a longer time to overlook the people and their actions.
I would choose experiment C over experiment B because it seems a more humane way to investigate the situation about dealing whether children inherit ADHD or not. I think that by keeping children away from their real parents of the truth for nine years is very hostility and is not the right method to go about it. By keeping the children away from their real parents it is deception in the investigation to then introduce them after nine years, this could therefore cause the children more damage and confusion in the long run and even promote ADHD from occurring and worsening it if they already had it. Experiment C is very un-ethical and wrong; in my opinion a huge reality check to the children and drastic change of life from being set and content after nine years could cause them to have many issues to them mentally.
Experiment C is a better choice because if the volunteers at any point felt uncomfortable with the investigation and didn’t want to take part anymore can withdraw from it, whereas experiment B no choice is given to them if they want to take part or not. Experiment C gives full information and detail to the volunteers before the study about it and what it involves and where the data will be used unlike experiment B. It also involves a full debrief at the end giving them the results of the diagnosis offering support afterwards again unlike experiment B. The experiment includes full confidentiality to the participants by labelling each questionnaire with a number instead of names. There is no use of deception in experiment C; you are given full details of the purpose of the study, on the other hand experiment B the participants aren’t even aware of the study. Although sometimes being un-aware of the experiment they will act more themselves and not put on a front, but in this case I believe it is totally wrong.
In conclusion I therefore agree experiment C is the right choice through it being more humane without deception, full debriefs and informed consent, protection of participants and confidentiality. This experiment also allows withdrawal from the study, compared to B which doesn’t at all.
In this answer I did mention about informed consent being in experiment C but them not giving it in experiment B. I included about there being deception in experiment b as the children don’t know their real parents, and it being very unethical, as well as no deception being included in study C. I included that there was a full debrief in experiment C also unlike being given one in experiment B. I said that experiment C included full confidentially and the full details of the purpose of the study, unlike experiment B. I mentioned there being protection of participants in study C, compared to B which doesn’t. Finally I included them being able to withdraw from the study if they wanted to, and confidentiality again also unlike experiment B, except B included confidentiality.
Experiment B would give the best results to find out whether ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder, but the whole concept is ethically flawed and unrealistic. So experiment C is the only realistic option to use for this investigation.
Experiment B would have accurate results because no one in the investigation is aware of the study on ADHD, so no results can be hindered. The whole study runs a span of nine years which gives researchers plenty of time to observe the children’s behaviours as they grow up. Both islands are identical which means there wouldn’t be any differences that could change the behaviour of the children. However, separating the twins at birth and taking them away from the biological parents is inhumane and would never be allowed even if it would lead to the best results. Then sending them home when they are nine to find out that the people they have called ‘mum and dad’ are not their real parents and that they have a twin would have a huge impact on the mental state of the children. It goes against the ethical guidelines in psychological research; they are not able to give informed consent due to them being taken at birth and were never able to withdraw from the experiment. It could never happen because it is unethical, unrealistic, inhumane and just too expensive to be a good option.
Experiment C is a better option because it follows the ethical guidelines of psychological research, the parents can choose whether they want to take part. They are given the purpose of the study, what it will involve and where the data will be used. They are debriefed at the end and even given support if a diagnosis is given. They are also given full confidentiality as they will use case numbers rather than a name.
Although experiment C wouldn’t give the best results for this investigation, it is the best option because it is ethically correct. And more importantly, much more realistic.
Experiment B is very unethical. The twins were not able to give consent to participating in the experiment as they were taken to live on the island after they were born. No one in the study was told about the experiment to stop any deception ruining it. At no point in the study were the twins able to withdraw from it because they thought this was their life. The twins were not protected because at the age of 9 they were brought home to realise that they have been a part of an experiment their whole life, this could cause distress on the twins. It doesn’t suggest that the twins were debriefed after in to why they have been part of an experiment their whole life and what the results are. However, the twins were given full confidentiality as they were labelled A and B and the researchers were trained and fully competent to record the behaviours of the children.
On the other case, experiment C was a good experiment and followed the ethical guidelines correctly. The parents of the twins were told what it will involve and what the date will be used for, so the parents could have chosen to not give any consent. Parents were able to withdraw from the experiment at any point as they could just not send it back. The twins were protected because it was just a questionnaire and that can’t cause any harm or distress. After the experiment, parents were informed to the result the diagnosis and were offered support, so they were debriefed correctly. Full confidentiality was given as the questionnaires were labelled with case numbers rather than names. The psychologist was educated and competent, so were safe to carry out the experiment.
Experiment B would be more accurate because of the shear scale of the whole study; the findings would be the accumulation of 9 years of development controlled by researchers, rather than answers given by parents and teachers, who may in fact be unreliable in their answers due to embarrassment, idealism or simple misunderstandings. However Experiment B is also flawed. The children may develop abnormally because of their upbringing by non biological parents. They may realize they are not related to their parents simply by appearances, or they could fail to connect with their foster parents because of differing personalities. The child could in fact develop ADHD as a result of feeling inadequate or alien in front of their parents.
When comparing both experiment C and B I believe that during experiment B you will be able to find out the best results for answering the question about if ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder. This is because using different parents for the twins means that they will be able to see if the ADHD is learnt behaviour rather than a genetically inherited disorder. If it was a genetically inherited disorder then if the twins where identical both twins would have to have the condition. If the pattern is resembled throughout different sets of twins the results will be clear. However this is a very unethical method to carry out research. The method may cause distress to children when they find out that who they believe are there real parents are not. This is because from birth they live with foster parents and haven’t been aware of what has been happening. When the experiment is over there is a massive adjustment for the children to learn and create a bond with their real parents after 9 years this can cause distress too. Also there is no informed consent of the children to have this happening to them. The experiment starts when the children are born so they unable to give consent. Additionally at no point in the experiment is there availability for withdrawal from the investigation this means that the experiment breaks the ethical guidelines. Furthermore to break the ethical guidelines deception is used towards the foster parents. Because they are unaware of the full experiment it might cause distress to these people when they discover what has happened. The amount of deception should be limited only to create a scenario where what they are looking for is not shown because the people viewed are acting naturally.
However experiment B will find the best results out experiment C is a lot more ethical and has more advantages to it. Experiment C follows the ethical guidelines allowing the parents and children to be available to withdrawal at any time if they want too. No deception is used so there is no distress caused when they are told what the experiment was measuring if the family don’t want to participate they are able to stop without any tracing of them because the results are confidential. These people that are participating in the experiment are volunteers therefore complete consent was given when applying to take part in the study, they are also informed in front what they are researching about so therefore they will be able to have free will whether they want to participate. On the other hand the experiment C might not produce as scientific results. This is because they are reliant on the answers form the family witch might not be very accurate. The family will not be able to contribute in the investigation if there is no body in the family with ADHD.
Overall I believe that experiment C is better because it fit into the ethical guidelines and does not cause distress to people involved. Even if the results in experiment B will be clearer and more accurate I believe that less accurate results but less distress caused is better overall.
In investigation B there is no debriefing therefore the children may be distressed because they don’t know what is happening also they may feel frightened because there whole life has to change. Also it will be very hard to stop the children form talking when they return to normal schools therefore it will be very hard to keep the children’s identity confidential. In experiment C there’s a complete debrief after the investigation therefore the children and adults are left with no distress at all this also ties into protection of participants because if the families are fully aware of what they are doing and they are able to withdraw at any point so no type of distress is caused. There data is also harder to track because each child is given a number rather than a name so if their children where to talk to their friends the results would still stay confidential.
Although experiment B would give more accurate results, it is unethical on the child’s part as they have not given consent – age is not an issue, it is still not right to take a child and take them away from their biological parents. If, however, these were twins given up for adoption, then perhaps the experiment would look better in an ethical light, but for the purposes of an experiment it is clearly wrong and, potentially, could be harmful to the child psychologically in later life. The children, aged nine, would be allowed to return back to their biological parents; whom they did not know existed until the final ADHD test. This would not be settling and would not be a healthy upbringing for a child; even considered damaging as they are being taken away from the foster parents whom they thought of as family.
Experiment C, as long as the parents and siblings have given full consent to be tested for ADHD and to complete the questionnaires, is seen as a better alternative. There are no ethics being breeched and the parents have the choice to withdraw at any point; which is fair. Also, they are clearly stated as volunteers – which means they consent – and are informed (through the poster) the exact purpose of the study. There would, potentially, be much less information to gain from the experiment and the infomation may not be as reliable; but it seems less intrusive and extreme as experiment B.
Experiment B is shocking, to say the least, and does not take into account the child’s emotional welfare or want to be involved in the experiment. This goes against many ethics, and would be psychologically damaging once the child found out the truth.
To conclude, experiment C is a simple experiment which would not get as detailed results yet is fully ethical and does not affect the children too much. The information seems fair; especially as the parents are volunteers and are allowed to withdraw at any time.
Experiment B would produce more professional and accurate results compared to experiment C that would only be based upon views and opinions of the parents, rather than actual scientific tests that take part in experiment B. Due to the children not being aware and notified that they were taking part in experiment B, meant that they were more likely to receive more trustworthy and reliable results. Where as the questionnaires in C could be full of inaccurate and false information. This proves that experiment B would be the most scientifically accurate experiment and would produce a very good knowledgeable amount of information for researchers and scientists.
At least in experiment C participants were volunteers and actually gave their consent to take part in research of ADHD. Where as in experiment B participants were not aware they were taking part in an experiment, and were actually separated from their real biological parents at birth. This meant they were brought up to believe their foster parents were there real parents, and were not informed of this until they were 9 years old. This is unethical and morally wrong to do something like this to someone. They must have been caused a lot of distress when they found out their life was not real and had been given non-biological foster parents. This would be breaking the protection of the participants. They were also not debriefed and were just sent straight to living with their real biological parents. They were not allowed at any point to withdraw from this experiment because they didn’t even know it was taking place around them. This is not fair on the children, and therefore is an unacceptable study to be made.
In conclusion even though experiment C may not be very accurate and trustworthy it is actually ethical and morally right. This is because all participants gave informed consent due to being volunteers. They had a debrief and were told the purpose of the study, what it would involve and where the data would be used. Also they were protected because it was only a questionnaire which would cause no harm or problems to the participants. It was kept confidential because they were given code numbers rather than their names. Furthermore they had the choice to withdraw from the experiment at any time they would wish to. Therefore I believe experiment C is the best because it is actual ethically and morally correct to all participants.
Experiment C is clearly the more realistic study as B is neither ethical nor practical. Firstly I imagine the chances of finding the necessary participants are incredibly low, why would parents choose to put their children through this process? The experiment does not meet three of the ethical guidelines. Obviously the babies cannot give informed consent as this would defeat the point of the experiment, even if they could understand what they were being asked. Arguably the experiment doesn’t ensure the mental protection of the participants as they would be substantially mentally damaged when they reached the end of the experiment and were suddenly told the truth, also they may be mentally damaged by being told that their foster parents were their genetic parents. And the experiment doesn’t allow the withdrawal of the participants as they do not know that they are part of an experiment at all.
Experiment B is not practical as it requires two almost identical islands in which no factors could affect the development of ADHD. It would also be very difficult to effectively track the participants over the course of nine years. On top of this the results may not be reliable as participation in the experiment could affect the development of the children.
Experiment C however is not as reliable, as it depends on the word of the children’s teachers and parents alone which may be biased and inaccurate. The experiment is also not as valid as experiment B as it does not cover such a large timescale. However due to practicality and morality Experiment C is definitely the better experiment.
Experiment B breaks most of the ethical guidelines. Firstly it doesn’t get informed consent from the participants, they are just taken away from their parents as babies and don’t find out about the experiment until they reach the age of nine. Because of this the participants also don’t have the right to withdraw, they don’t know they are part of an experiment so can’t ask to leave it. They may however be able to withdraw their results after the experiment so it does partly meet this guideline, but I don’t feel it does enough to be considered ethically acceptable.
Deception is necessary for experiment B however is not for experiment C, so I would argue that, as they both aim for the same results, experiment B does not keep deception to a minimum. So that is another guideline that experiment B doesn’t meet.
I would say that the most important guideline which experiment B breaks is protection of participants. Being taken away from their genetic parents and twin as a baby and being lied to about their family for nine years may cause serious psychological harm, making the experiment unethical and possibly affecting the results, making them invalid.
There are some guidelines which experiment B does meet; The participants are kept anonymous, meaning that there identities are not revealed in the results. Also the researchers monitoring the behaviour of the participants are trained, meaning the competency of researchers is met. Finally the experiment does involve a debrief at the end of the nine years when the children are returned to their parents.
Experiment C is much more ethical, it allows the right to withdraw from the experiment and the right to withdraw data provided, it is carried out by competent researchers and ensures the protection of participants, not placing them at any risk. Participants give informed consent to take part in the survey, there is no deception involved, perticipants are kept anonymous and are given a full debrief, including advice if a participant is diagnosed with ADHD during the experiment. So experiment C, which meets all the ethical guidelines, is clearly the more ethically correct of the two experiments.
Experiment B is an interesting way to discover the possibility of ADHD being an inherent gene from parents. However, the experiment has many drawbacks. For example setting up two separate synthetic islands would be extremely expensive and very near impossible due to differentiation in wind currents, location, humidity etc. If these islands were not completely identical, then the experiment would be very hard to contain and control as there would be many different variables acting upon both of the islands. The experiment would work in a controlled environment, for example a white room, but in the circumstances suggested, it would be very near impossible to conduct.
Conversely, the proposal of experiment C, is very probable and coherent with the aim, and would provide more realistic, and reliable, results. I believe that it is the better study because it involves absolutely no deception; all of the subjects and their respective families are completely informed about what they’re doing and what their data will be used for. The experiment also carries the advantage that it is very cost-friendly, it costs next to nothing to produce the questionnaires needed and the experiment takes very little time.
Experiment B is a very barbaric, unethical proposal, because the children are taken away from their biological parents for 9 years, with no option to pull out if they’re not enjoying it and, more importantly, with absolutely no knowledge that they are in an experiment and they’re living a false life, and then at the end of it they’re returned to their supposed ‘real’ parents, who they have no idea even exist, which is very much for a 9 year old to have to cope with. This is my main reason for concluding that option C would be my chosen experiment.
Experiment C provides psychological support for the families and gives them every opportunity to pull out of the experiment whenever they feel it is getting too much or the experiment scares them or any conditions. It also protects their best interests, giving them the confidentiality that they require to be a successful experiment. Mainly, the aim of the experiment, to find out whether the gene is recessive within a family, is met very well, and very efficiently.
In terms of Ethics, Experiment B gives the children no option of informed consent, as they are taken away at birth and are not given the option to say whether or not they wish to withdraw from the experiment. Also, they are not given the right to withdraw from the experiment as they do not know they are partaking in an experiment. Also, there is no mention of the competency of the psychologists, however it is implied as they said they will receive a full testing for ADHD, meaning they would have to be tested by a qualified educational psychologist. Anonymity is also not mentioned; meaning that the details of the subjects may be released without their consent. Finally, in experiment B there would be a lot of psychological harm as they would be taken away from their families at birth, meaning a lot of distress.
However, in experiment C, the ethics of the study is a lot better. There is the option of withdrawal as they are told if they do not wish to send back their questionnaire, they don’t have to! This also provides a protection of participants because it can protect their best interests. There is also anonymity mentioned as the subjects are told they will be referred to as numbers, and not names, this protects their identity. Finally, there is obviously no possibility of harm or distress as they just have to fill in a questionnaire, which for a human would not usually be distressful.
Study B would be a highly effective method of determining whether or not ADHD is genetically inherited—the blind trials mean all subjects involved would act in the way they perceive to be normal, which would therefore glean more accurate results; with an intense and long lasting experiment which will collect lots of useful data. However, the study raises numerous and severe moral and ethical dilemmas; taking away babies from both their twins and their parents will cause a lack of trust and will form sceptical minds upon their return to the general population. Also, a life on an island for 9 years of a child’s life will leave them knowing nothing else, making it hard or impossible for them to learn and adapt to life in the real world—both of these concerns will potentially lead to the children having a more difficult life when compared to those who were brought up in the general populous for their entire lives. As well as ethical issues, the cost to carry out such an experiment would be enormous, along with the length of time it will take to gather the final results (in which time other, similar, experiments may have been devised and conducted).
Study C, on the other hand, is a more ethical way to carry out such an experiment, but is also less likely to produce accurate results. Ethical in the ways of all subjects are aware of what’s happening to them and what they have volunteered for—however in these kinds of studies it’s the way in which a person answers the questions depends on how they perceive a situation, which means that the answers given are less likely to be accurate enough to gain reliable results.
Therefore, overall, Study B—though the less ethical of the two—would be the more rewarding; it is more likely to produce accurate and reliable results, as opposed to Study C because of the structure of the experiment, with more variables being outside the possibility of control. This said, the ethical and costal dilemmas would make Study B unfeasible and unlikely to be carried out, whereas Study C could be carried out quickly and at relatively low cost.
Study B is very unethical; this is shown by the fact it violates many of the ethical guidelines—including the informed consent of the participants, this is taken away from them as the participating subjects, the baby twins, do not give their own consent to take part in the study, instead it it is presumably given by their parents. They are also unable to withdraw from the study, as they are unaware of one being conducted around them. At the end of the study, where they are reintegrated into society, the subjects would undergo a significant amount of psychological harm, learning that the first 9 years of their lives were limited and fake, as well as who they believe to be their parents are, in reality, not. The competency of the researchers is not specifically mentioned, however it is said that they will receive a full test for ADHD, so it can be inferred that the researchers are qualified to be carrying out the study—which supports the idea of the study being ethical to the extent it can be for valid results.
Study C was, however, a much more ethical study—in the sense that subjects are aware of their right to withdraw from the study, which promotes an ethical study; this provides protection of the participants—as well as in the way of the participants not being subjected to a possibility of distress as filling out a questionnaire is harmless, further supporting the ethics of study C. Finally, the anonymity involved in the experiment, using numbers as opposed to their names, protects the subject’s names and details so they can’t be identified from the results.
Overall I would choose experiment C when investigating if ADHD is inherited for various reasons; firstly it is the more ethically correct out of the two as the parents are able to pull out of the experiment at any time they wish to which means that there will be no offence caused. Secondly the children are not being lied to so they know what the experiment is about, it is confidential so the children will not feel violated in any way, they even list the child as a case number instead of their name.
Another reason why I have chosen option C is that the subjects actually gave consent for the research to be carried out on them whereas with options B this did not happen; only the parents knew about it, however people may argue that the children will behave differently knowing about the experiment which may be true but their ethics are more important.
Although experiment B would give more accurate results as it is a made up situation where people can control all of the variables to make sure that it is a fair test, it is highly unethical as the children do not realise that they are a part of an experiment which means they did not give consent. Also the cost and long time scale of the experiment would mean that it would not be feasible.
Option C is more ethically correct because like i said before the parents are able to pull out at any time, this isn’t possible for option B as the children don’t know that an experiment is taking place.
Also consent was given in option C by the parents and children however this isn’t the case for option B because the children were taken at birth to an island without realising. This could also cause the children psychological harm when they are reunited with their parents at the age of 9 which is highly unethical, the children could also find it hard to warm to the real parents and the twin as they have not been with them for all of their life. How they feel may not just go away after a while but it could stay with them for the rest of their life causing anxiety.
There is a lot of deception and no debrief in experiment B which makes it very unethical too.
The participants are protected in option C as they are referred to as a case number rather than their name which makes the experiment more confidential so it is more ethical.
Although experiment C is more realistic and feasible, and has no ethical issues, it does not measure well enough what it set out to in the aim. This is because both of the twins have been in the exact same environment for their whole lives, so genetics is not the only factor which could lead them to develop ADHD.
However, experiment B also has its disadvantages, such as the fact that separating the twins and the parents could cause emotional damage to the children, as well as the biological parents (and possibly even the foster parents on separation after 9 years). Also, the subjects have not given informed consent, which should be necessary as this is not something that would happen to them in everyday life. All subjects have been greatly deceived, which could result in psychological harm and trust issues etc. On the other hand, the deception may be a crucial part of the experiment, as it requires the children to grow up as naturally as they possibly can.
Overall, I don’t think that either of the two experiments are perfect or completely refined, but if I had to make a choice I would choose experiment B – despite the fact that it is virtually impossible to create two identical islands – because in terms of relevance to the aim it is definitely the more valid study. It also means that the subjects’ behaviour can be constantly monitored, unlike experiment C where the parents of the subjects fill in a questionnaire on one occasion.
In the case of experiment B, the participants are not given the right to withdraw because they are not told about the experiment in the first place, and their biological parents are not given that right either. The children also have not given informed consent, due to the fact that they are unaware of the study (however if they knew about they study, it would be pointless). Harm or distress may also be caused to the child because they meet their biological parents after being deceived for 9 years, which could result in psychological damage. They are also not really given anonymity as everybody on the island knows that they are part of a study, so can be identified later. They are deceived greatly – thinking their foster parents are their biological parents, not knowing they have a twin etc. Despite this, the participants receive a thorough debrief from researchers and are in competent hands.
Experiment C has the fewest ethical issues, if any. The parents are able to withdraw themselves from the experiment by not sending the questionnaire, or by choosing to remove their data from the study. Participants give informed consent and fully understand what is happening in the study, which also means that there is no deception. No harm or distress is caused as they only fill out a questionnaire, so will not suffer from that. The experiment is also confidential and anonymous, because the questionnaire is labelled with a case number instead of a name and therefore participants cannot be identified later on. There is no need for a full debrief, but if a child’s test results for ADHD come back positive, the parents will meet the doctor and/or researcher, who is competent and maintains professionalism.
Despite the fact that both experiments are perfectly viable, the distinction between which is the better of the two is debatable.
Experiment B would provide a wholly accurate example of whether or not the influence of parents or the genetics have a larger impact on the diagnosis of the child. The variables are easily and carefully controlled, the experiment is replicated exactly in terms of climate and lifestyle on both islands and there is no risk of the participants acting out of normal behavior when with the knowledge that they are being studied. However, whilst Experiment B causes no excessive distress or upset during the 9 years it is conducted, there would be many consequences once the study ended.The disruption the child would suffer at such a late age, after becoming so familiar in their surroundings, would put them under huge strain. The emotional confusion of being informed you have different parents to the ones you have been raised with your whole life would be drastic for an adult, let alone a young and vulnerable child.
Experiment C avoids all of these consequences. The study is safe, easy and consensual, with all participants being well prepared and informed, with the right to remove themselves at any point should they become unhappy or uncomfortable. Although undoubtedly better for the subjects involved, Experiment C is far less reliable, as it is likely that those involved would change their behavior – albeit subconsciously – under the pressure of being studied.
Despite this risk, the study would be likely to bring a sufficient conclusion – at no damage to the participants. In my opinion, this is reason for Experiment C to be the better experiment.
Option B involves the children living with foster parents for 9 years giving them a false life as they are unaware of what is being taken place, ( the experiment ) so they do not provide “informed consent” leaving them to go back to their biological parents when the experiment is finished, which then they will most probably have know idea who they are, this is extremely unethical and taking away their rights and really their identity. Leading to the children asking serious questions towards their biological family and being very confused resulting in mental consequences from the experiment.
They are unable to leave once started so this provides no withdrawal from the investigation. Therefore this all put together made me come up with my decision that option C in fact was the best as it provides a sort of like ‘informed consent’ but to the parents with a debrief, protection of the participants as its in a controlled environment, and withdrawal from the investigation so they participants parents are still in control on what will happen. overall this experiment is successful on research on the inheritance of ADHD.
in this answer i wrote how option B does not provide ‘informed consent’ and how unethical it is. i wrote how option C on the other hand does have a sort of like ‘informed consent’ aswell as a debrief,protection and withdrawal giving the participants/parents the power to leave, which is scene as ethical, where as opion B does not contain any, i said how the children are being deceived for the first 9 years of their life then leaving them to go back to their biological family after which is completely unethical.
The two contrasting experiments each have their own strengths and weaknesses. For example experiment B would no doubt yield the highest quality and in depth results. However it is the more unethical of the two experiments.
Experiment B used a complex scenario to gauge the development of ADHD in twins. It did this by separating a pair of twins at birth and putting them on a separate island with surrogate parents. This is not only deceiving the participants but setting them up for severe trauma when they are re-united with their twin and parents after 9 years. This does not ensure the emotional safety of the participants. It also states in the experiment plan that under no circumstances are the children to know of the experiment, thus deceiving them and also taking away their right to give or deny consent. The experiment does however use a controlled environment to test the subjects over the course of the nine years and strong ties will be made to the development of ADHD in twins. Though the experiment will have high costs the knowledge gained would be invaluable. Unfortunately the cost of such knowledge is too high to risk endangering the participants.
Experiment C is the alternate experiment, instead being based in a clinic and advertising for participants in the newspaper. This allows for a larger sample size and grants the subjects consent so that they may choose not to take part. There is also the option during the experiment for participants to withdraw. A factor that was not available in experiment B. Experiment C also takes less time and subjects are in full knowledge of what they are taking part in. Experiment C is also safer for the subjects. Full confidentiality is maintained and the data is not disclosed without the permission of the participants.
In summary experiment C takes more care in the way of ethics than experiment B. It abides by all the guidelines laid out by the B.P.S.