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
- What is the main ethical issue underlying Scarce’s refusal to testify?
- Are sociologists bound by the Code of Ethics to violate the law if it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of research information?
- Are there ways to prevent the situation in which Scarce became involved?
- What are the boundaries between research and participation?
Discussion
This case, based on a real situation, was widely publicized (e.g., see the special issue of the American Sociologist, 1995?). It illustrates the way one sociologist chose to deal with conflicts between ethics and law. Scarce’s refusal to testify was based on the principle of confidentiality, as stated in the previous Code:
Confidential information provided by research participants must be treated as such by sociologists, even when this information enjoys no legal protection or privilege and legal force is applied (Code of Ethics, 1989:3).
Scarce, and the ASA, argued that sociological research is inhibited if absolute promise of confidentiality is not given to research participants. Research participants will be less willing to “cooperate in future research if investigators are unable to pledge confidentiality, or, having promised to protect the subjects, are forced to breach this promise.” In addition, investigators will avoid specific participants or high-risk research topics that are likely to “give rise to external demands for research information.” The effects of “expensive, time-consuming and distracting litigation on on-going research may be devastating” (Brief of Amicus Curiae, American Sociological Association, 1993).
Confidentiality of research information is philosophically the cornerstone of sociological research. However, the complexities of guarantees of confidentiality are now better understood and the importance of sociologists’ awareness of the Code and Federal, state, and institutional policies and laws is paramount to the design and conduct of research. This is reflected in the new Code, which states that sociologists have the responsibility to inform themselves of pertinent policies and laws and that confidentiality statements should be framed with these concerns in mind:
Sociologists have an important obligation to take reasonable precautions to respect the confidentiality rights of research participants. At the same time, they recognize that confidentiality may be subject to definitions or limitations established in law, institutional rules, or specific professional or scientific relationships.
The review of proposed research by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) may be required and can be helpful in identifying research risks that are not known or anticipated. Certificates of Confidentiality (however, see the next case) are another safeguard against invasions of the privacy of research participants. Consultation with colleagues, attorneys, and/or others expert in difficult issues may be useful in resolving potential conflicts between ethics and law.
