Research Ethics & the IRB
- Explain the purpose of an Institutional Review Board and research ethics review
- Apply core ethical principles: informed consent, confidentiality, and minimizing harm
- Identify special protections required when research involves human subjects, especially minors
Why research ethics exists
Whenever research involves people, the researcher holds power over participants and must not misuse it. An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a committee that reviews proposed studies before they begin to ensure participants are protected. Modern research ethics grew out of historical abuses, and it rests on three principles from the Belmont Report: respect for persons (treat people as autonomous agents who choose whether to participate), beneficence (maximize benefits and minimize harms), and justice (distribute the burdens and benefits of research fairly). In AP Research, even without a formal IRB, you are expected to think and act like one.
Informed consent, confidentiality, and harm
Three obligations turn principles into practice. Informed consent means participants understand what the study involves, what the risks are, and that they may withdraw at any time — and then voluntarily agree, without pressure. Confidentiality means protecting participants’ identities and data: anonymizing responses, storing data securely, and reporting results so individuals cannot be identified. Minimizing harm means designing so that physical, psychological, or social risks are as low as possible and justified by the study’s value. Deception, if ever used, requires special justification and debriefing.
Vulnerable populations and minors
Some participants need extra protection because they are less able to protect themselves — children, prisoners, people with cognitive impairments, and others in dependent relationships. For AP Research this matters most with minors: research with people under 18 typically requires parental or guardian consent and the minor’s own assent, plus heightened scrutiny of risks. Because most high school researchers study other students, this is not a technicality — surveying classmates about a sensitive topic without proper consent and confidentiality is an ethical violation, however well-intentioned.
A student plans to survey 9th graders at their school about experiences with anxiety and depression, posting the survey link in a group chat with real names attached. Identify the ethical problems and fix the design.
- 1.Vulnerable population: 9th graders are minors, so parental/guardian consent plus student assent are required before any data collection.
- 2.Informed consent: the design does not tell participants the purpose, risks, or their right to withdraw — add a clear consent/assent statement.
- 3.Sensitive topic and harm: questions about anxiety and depression can cause distress; minimize harm by keeping questions non-diagnostic and providing mental-health resources.
- 4.Confidentiality: attaching real names exposes participants; make the survey anonymous, store data securely, and report only aggregate results.
- 5.Voluntariness: posting in a class group chat can pressure peers; make clear that participation is optional and non-participation carries no penalty.
What does "informed consent" require of a researcher?
Studying your classmates is not automatically "safe" because they are peers. Minors require guardian consent plus assent, sensitive topics require care and support resources, and identifying data must be protected. Good intentions do not substitute for ethical procedure.
Why does research involving minors require additional ethical safeguards beyond ordinary informed consent?
AP Research requires documenting how you addressed ethics — consent, confidentiality, and harm — in your process and paper. Fabricating or falsifying data is a policy violation that can invalidate your score. Reviewers expect an explicit account of how participants were protected.
Answer the 2 checkpoints as you read.
Sign in to save your progress