Case 99. A Real Case Involving the Protection of Confidential Data
Situation
In 1991, Rik Scarce was a graduate student at Washington State
University with longtime interests in radical social movements. Wanting
to develop the area of animal rights activism as part of his graduate
work, Scarce submits a proposal to this effect to his department.
Scarce is planning a vacation and asks a former research participant to
house-sit. While Scarce is on vacation, animal research facilities on
campus are vandalized and animals are stolen or “liberated.” After the
house-sitter appears on television to support animal rights activists,
he is suspected by authorities of being involved in the break-in.
Scarce learns of the break-in on his return home when he sees a
newspaper story about the incident. He discusses the story with the
house-sitter and other individuals the house-sitter has invited to his
home. Authorities suspect the other individuals of involvement in the
break-in as well and want Scarce to reveal the nature of his
conversations with them. After months of refusing to testify before a
grand jury, Scarce agrees to answer questions relating to what he
considers non-confidential (e.g., non-research) information. However,
citing the then existing ASA Code of Ethics (1989), he refuses to
answer other questions that pertain to his research. Scarce is jailed
for more than four months under a contempt order.
Questions
1. What is the main ethical issue underlying Scarce's
refusal to testify?
2. Are sociologists bound by the Code of Ethics to
violate the law if it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of
research information?
3. Are there ways to prevent the situation in which
Scarce became involved?
4. What are the boundaries between research and
participation?
Reflect on the above questions and form your
own answers before clicking the Discussion
key to review the commentary provided with this case.
Additional Information