The adopted codes of conduct for psychological research Essay Example for Free

The adopted codes of conduct for psychological research Essay There is a belief among psychologists that by carrying out an experiment we should be lead to understand ourselves better and to the enhancement of the human condition and promotion of human welfare. This can only be completed if the experiment is ethically right to all parties involved. Ethics in an experimental situation deals with the idea of morality, what would be considered morally right behaviour in sight of a specific scientific goal. One idea which all psychologists agree on today which can be very rare, are the adopted codes of conduct for psychological research, these were created in 1985 by the British Psychological Society (BPS) in order to minimize the risk to human participants. There are six ethical principles which must be carried out in order for the codes of conduct to be complete. These include informed consent, where all subjects should be informed full information about the objectives of the research. In particular subjects should be told information that could prevent or permit their choice to participate in the experiment. Subjects should have the right to withdraw; participants should be informed that they can leave the experiment at any stage regardless of any payment. Intentional deception should be avoided at all times; subjects shouldnt be misleading deliberately without strong scientific justification. Researchers should offer full information about and explanation of research to participants so a full debriefing should be acknowledged. Confidentiality should be up held by researchers for their subjects at all times due to legislation requirements, if any data is published this should not be identifiable unless agree previously. When carrying out observation research psychologists must also follow the code of conduct by respecting the privacy of psychological well being of the individuals studied. Finally BPS guidelines require researchers to give full protection to their participants that they should not experience any physical or mental harm greater than what is experienced in everyday life. In order to keep to the last requirement giving full protection psychologists follow the code of not experimenting on minors which include any children under the age of 16. As the law of the BPS has only just been passed in 1985 there have been many previous studies carried out by psychologist which have made many break troughs in human behaviour, although there have also been some ethical problems toward subjects as the BPS laws had not been followed. One psychologist named Zimbardo carried put an experiment where the right to with drawl seemed almost impossible to subjects. There mental state had been confused they had really taken on the roles of prisoner and guard and so did not want to leave, also they could not cope outside the prison it took over their lives. In this experiment there was no informed consent as the subjects werent informed on what exactly they had to do because this would have spoiled the experiment due to demand characteristics. There were problems with debriefing as after the experiment subjects were not left in the same state of mind that they had when they entered. Above all of these ethic guidelines the biggest concern of all was that this experiment totally disregarded the protection of its participants, so much so that it wasnt until mental breakdown of some subjects the experiment was counselled. The next psychologist I looked at was Milgram. His ethical problems against the BPS code included deception as the subjects were deliberately deceived into thinking his role of teacher was given randomly where as in fact both the subject and actor were given teacher roles, only the actor played the role of learner. This study went against the right to withdraw as it was found that if the actor and teacher wanted to stop the experimenter would persuade the teacher to continue making teacher feel obliged to continues saying we take full responsibility for your actions. The psychologist Paliavin did an experiment concerning observation here the code was broken as psychologist are expected to respects subjects privacy in this experiment psychologists are aware of subjects at all times as here psychologist is looking for reactions so no privacy of individuals available. In this experiment there is no informed consent as subjects were not informed as to what the study involved all they new they were to get on a particular train. There was no total protection to participants as they could have had serious after effects from a situation where someone collapses on a train because of the shock and not knowing what to do.

Facism in America :: essays research papers

Since mainstream left-liberal media do not seriously ask this question, the analysis of what has gone wrong and where we are heading has been mostly off-base. Investigation of the kinds of under-handed, criminal tactics fascist regimes undertake to legitimize their agenda and accelerate the rate of change in their favor is dismissed as indulging in "conspiracy theory." Liberals insist that this regime must be treated under the rules of "politics as usual." But this doesn't consider that one election has already been stolen, and that September's repeat of irregularities in Florida was a clear warning that more such thuggery is on the way. If the "f" word is uttered, liberals are quick to note certain obvious dissimilarities with previous variants of fascism and say that what is happening in America is not fascist. It took German justice minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin to make the comparison explicit (under present American rules of political discourse, sh e has been duly sacked from her cabinet post); but at the liberal New York Times or The Nation, American writers dare not speak the truth. The masked assertion that we are immune to the virus ignores degrees of convergence and distinction based on the individual patient's history. The Times and other liberal voices have been obsessed over the last year with the rise of minority fascist parties in the Netherlands, France, and other European countries. They have questioned the tastefulness of new books and movies about Hitler, and again demonized such icons of Nazism as Leni Riefenstahl. Is this perhaps a displacement of American anxiety onto the safer European scene, liberal intellectuals here not wanting to confront the troubling truth? The pace of events in the last year has been almost as blindingly fast as it was after Hitler's Machtergreifung and the consolidation of fascist power in 1933. Speed stuns and silences. The proposed Iraqi adventure, which is only the first step in a more ambitious militarist agenda, has been opposed by the most conservative warmongers of past administrations. If the test of any theory is its predictive capacity, Bush's extreme risk-taking is better explained by the fascist model. Purely economic motives are a large part of the story, but there is a deeper derivation that exceeds such mundane rationales. Several of the apparent contradictions in Bush's governance make perfect sense if the fascist prism is applied, but not with the normal perspective. To pose the question doesn't mean that this is a completed project; at any point, anything can happen to shift the course of history in a different direction.

Report: Comair Flight

My Summary Comair Flight 191, also marketed and know as Delta Connection Flight 5191, was scheduled to fly from Lexington, Kentucky, to Atlanta, Georgia, on the morning of August 27, 2006. Unfortunately the jet crashed while attempting to take off from Blue Grass Airport in Fayette County, Kentucky. There is a ton of information on this accident and numerous â€Å"mistakes† that possibly led to it but it seems that the majority of the blame was put on the captain. I find this accident had multiple people at fault, in that if any one person was able to do their job professionally and accurately, this accident would not of happened and those people would still be alive today. The Event The aircraft was assigned by the tower to the airport's Runway 22 for the takeoff, but used Runway 26 instead. Runway 26 was too short for a safe takeoff which was typically used for general aviation, causing the aircraft to overrun the end of the runway before it could become airborne. It crashed just past the end of the runway, killing all 47 passengers and two of the three crew. The first officer was the only survivor and not the pilot in command but was flying at the time of the accident. Matthew Kawamura 06/15/2013 Air Trans 1010 SM Errors Leading Some of these errors are of skill based, judgment and or perception based but some are a combination. 1. The flight crew initially boarded the wrong aircraft. A Comair ramp agent noticed that the accident flight crew had boarded the wrong airplane and started its auxiliary power unit. Another company ramp agent notified the flight crewmembers that they had boarded the wrong airplane. The flight crew then shut down the APU and proceeded to the correct airplane. I don’t know if this is a common mistake but shows me how easy the day can start off wrong. That’s 3 professional people that all walked on the wrong plane and did not notice. Should this have set off some alarms that something was not right? My question has no answers but am sure it may have caused them to be behind schedule and then add some sort of stress. 2. The LEX air traffic control tower was staffed with one controller at the time of the accident airplane’s preflight activities, taxi, and attempted takeoff. The controller was responsible for all tower and radar positions. I believe that if the tower did not check on the radar position and follow through on watching the aircraft. He was to make sure the aircraft was on the correct runway. According to the report, the tower was to be manned with two people. If this was enforced, maybe the controller would not have been so over worked and could have caught the mistake. I think also that the controller had assumptions that this crew knew what was going on and didn’t need to be babysat. There had not been any issues with any other aircraft getting on the wrong runway that we know of. 3. The first officer began the takeoff briefing, which is part of the before starting engines checklist. During the briefing, he had confusion as to what runway to use and stated, â€Å"he said what runway†¦ two four,† to which the captain replied, â€Å"it’s two two. † The first officer continued the briefing, which included three additional references to runway 22. This would lead one to believe that there was no more confusion about what runway to use and a second check could have saved them. 4. During the brief, the first officer also noted that the runway end identifier lights were out and commented, â€Å"came in the other night it was like †¦ lights are out all over the place. † This reflects the care of the airport fac ilities. Sounds like a simple task to replace lights but we have no answers to why this is allowed to go on. Having had been to this airport other times, I can see no concern for it as long as you are sure. Just because other planes are doing it doesn’t make it safe. I feel a lot of stuff is follow the leader or a check list mindlessly because that’s how it is and is the same result at the end†¦ Everything the same and ok. This brings in carelessness. Matthew Kawamura 06/15/2013 Air Trans 1010 SM Violations 1. During the start engines checklist, some shady stuff was going on. The captain pointed out that the before starting engines checklist had already been completed, and the first officer questioned, â€Å"We did†? The irst officer seems to be a little behind the curve, the captain is going to fast for him through the checks or just wanted to skipped it completely. Being only a first officer, who is going to argue and is just relying on the captain’s word or not doing checks properly. This also may be standard cheating around the industry. Who will blow the whistle? 2. The flight crew engaged in conversation that was not pertinent to the operation of the flight. This would be violating the sterile cockpit rules during critical moments. Matthew Kawamura 06/15/2013 Air Trans 1010 SM Maybe a sterile cockpit could of helped? Three people messing around sounds like fun but seem to forget about the other people on board who depend on them to be professional. Environmental The crew, tower, weather and plane all seemed to be good to go from the reports. The runway had lighting issues and the charts had some issues. 1. Runway 4/22 had high intensity runway lights that worked and also had centerline lights and runway end identifier lights, but they were out of service at the time of the accident because of a construction project. If more care would of been put in place to how this affects the pilots, and listened to pilot complaints this should not of been an issue. 2. The charts showed the taxiway configuration at the completion of the construction project that was not completed. I couldn’t figure out what all the before and after charts meant, but the bottom line is that the charts in use were out of date and or didn’t show proper information which could have caused more confusion for the crew. Supervision 1. The captain began a discussion with the first officer about which of them should be the flying pilot to ATL. The captain offered the flight to the first officer, and the first officer accepted. Matthew Kawamura 06/15/2013 Air Trans 1010 SM The captain delegated to the first officer and then seemed to rush through the check list and the first officer seemed to not be quite on the ball. The first officer let the captain take control of the check list, this in turn led to inadequate supervision and failure to correct. Organizational influence For the pilots, they seemed to be way relaxed not worried about what was going on around them. This was just another flight even though there was a lot around them going wrong to include the lights and short briefs. Seems that there is no checks to see how people work when no one is watching. For the tower, He seemed relaxed at his job also. He did some presuming and thought he didn’t have to babysit professionals. He saw the Comair airplane make a turn toward what he presumed to be runway 22, which was the last time he observed the airplane. The controller stated that, after he saw the airplane make this turn, he turned away and faced the tower cab’s center console so that he could begin the traffic count. Verbal guidance from the FAA’s vice president of terminal services, stated that facilities with radar and tower responsibilities were to be staffed with two controllers on the midnight shift so that the functions could be split, although both controllers could be colocated in the tower. There seemed to be checks and the tower continued how they wanted. Sounds like there should have been two controllers on duty so this puts people higher in the chain of command at being relaxed and not needing to worry cause it won’t happen to them. The Complete Chain IMO ( In my opinion) 1. I think the first link to the chain of events that led to this crash was when they boarded the wrong plane. This may have put them behind and then started the short cutting of briefs and procedures. Maybe it was just the beginning of their laziness and nothing cloud of have changed it. 2. The charts and lighting situation may have caused more confusion in the cockpit. 3. If the tower had two people, it may have helped out one of the controllers and allowed him the time to watch and make sure they were on the correct runway. The first two points being corrected still may not have prevented this accident but certainly the third would have prevented it unless they just didn’t listen. Solutions 1. Better taxi brief and follow. 2. Use check list and not shortcut. 3. Sterile cockpit. 4. Rest periods modified and day/night shift crews. 5. CRM training 6. Random safety checks 7. Fix lighting and make better 8. Look out the window for cues. Matthew Kawamura 06/15/2013 Air Trans 1010 SM NTSB determination â€Å"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crewmembers’ failure to use available cues and aids to identify the airplane’s location on the airport surface during taxi and their failure to cross?check and verify that the airplane was on the correct runway before takeoff. Contributing to the accident were the flight crew’s nonpertinent conversation during taxi, which resulted in a loss of positional awareness, and the Federal Aviation Administration’s failure to require that all runway crossings be authorized only by specific air traffic control clearances. †

The Blame Upon Victor Frankenstein - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1101 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2019/04/12 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: Frankenstein Essay Did you like this example? In the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, it is clear to lay the blame upon Victor Frankenstein. The definition of blame is the assignation of responsibility towards someone/something for a fault or wrong. Victors love and passion for science led to a monstrous idea and ended up killing three people. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Blame Upon Victor Frankenstein" essay for you Create order While his pride was a driving force, abandoning the creature was not a smart move. Due to the fact that his idea was matched with the act of doing gives the right to put forth the blame. Clearly, Victor Frankensteins pride and hunger for recognition blinded his reasoning and abandoning the creature brought blame upon himself. In light of the formation of the creature, Frankensteins pride pushed it further to existence. It all started during his childhood; natural philosophy changed the way he saw things and was purely obsessed with science. At age thirteen, Victor attended a party of pleasure to the baths near Thonon, where due to weather conditions, had to stay at an inn in which he founded the works of Cornelius Agrippa(a philosopher). He became intrigued; therefore sought to his father to show him the book, but his father turned it down calling it sad trash. Victors father was not scientific in the least and always turned to logic, whereas Victor thrived for science. His father never understood Frankensteins passion for science, and so it drove Frankensteins desire for intelligence. My father was not scientific, and I was left to struggle with a childs blindness, added to a students thirst for knowledge.(Shelley 36). Blind indeed Frankenstein was, but not from the lack of information given as a child; he was blinded by his own pride and the scarcity of judgement. Victors knowledge continued to grow as did his pride leading up to the creation of the creature. Wealth was an inferior object, but what glory would attend the discovery if I could banish disease from the human frame and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death! Nor were these my only visions. The raising of ghosts or devils was a promise liberally accorded by my favourite authors, the fulfillment of which I most eagerly sought; and if my incantations were always unsuccessful, I attributed the failure rather to my own inexperience and mistake than to a want of skill or fidelity in my instructors. (Shelley 36). In this quote his pride shows by his obsession over the idea of the recognition from his accomplishment, not thinking of the whole picture. His focus was on him and what he could possibly bring to the table of science. Frankenstein could be defined as a narcissist, fantasising over success, power, and brilliance, who takes advantage of others and has a hard time maintaining relationships; entitled. Since his only thoughts were on himself, it lead his pride take over, constructing a demolition. As shown above, Victor Frankensteins pride blinded his judgement, leaving him to blame upon the destruction. Finally, his abandonment of the creature left it to live in fear and confusion, causing it to harm others. After fulfilling his goal (creating the creature), he was amazed by his creation at first, but when he observed all the details of its appearance he was disgusted and relentful. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.(Shelley 59). It was at that moment when Frankenstein made a terrible mistake; abandoning the creature. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room and continued a long time traversing my bedchamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep.(Shelley 59). There are only two reasons thought of as to why he left it to fend for itself: pure shock and regret in his decision making, and repeating what his father did to him (cowardice). In the beginning of the book, just after his mother died his father sent Victor away to school to study his science. Instead of pushing Victor away during this depressing time, he should have kept him close and went through a time of mourning together as family. Since Victor had no understanding of what parenting is, like his father, he ran from his problem and had no intention of teaching it the ways of the world. Due to his abandonment, the creature became angry, and scared. During this time, it led him to do bad things; kill people. Frankenstein then went to seek out the creature to be rid of him. Once he got ahold of it, the creature said, ?I expected this reception, said the daemon. All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends.'(Shelley 113). In this quote, the creature questions Frankenstein reason to why he brought him to life if all he wants to do is kill him and the rest of mankind sees it as this ratchet monster, essentially blaming him for creating him. While murdering people wasnt the best idea, the creature didnt know any better because it wasnt conditioned/trained right from wrong. If Frankenstein would have taught the creature the ways of human life like polite mannerisms, basic education, and cognitive thinking, most likely the murders would not have taken place. Given these points, it is Frankensteins fault that his abandonment brought bitterness upon the creature, causing harm towards others. In conclusion, Victor Frankensteins pride and hunger for recognition blinded his reasoning and abandoning the creature brought blame upon himself. His pride grew with the knowledge he obtained from his schooling and philosophers he read about, for example Cornelius Agrippa; therefore contributing to his narcissism and not thinking about the whole picture. Frankenstein also abandoned the creature leaving it to fester in anger and confusion towards his existence that it displaced its emotions on others, killing them. Ultimately, the blame should be laid on Frankensteins shoulders due to excessive pride and refusing his responsibility towards his creation, the creature.