社會行為科學研究之倫理及其審查機制

The Ethical Review and Its Mechanism for Social Behavioral Research

10.6145/jme.201106_15(2).0010

戴正德(Michael Cheng-Tek Tai)；李明濱(Ming-Been Lee)

研究倫理 ； 社會行為科學 ； 人體試驗委員會 ； research ethics ； social and behavioral sciences ； Institute Research Board IRB

Journal of Medical Education

15卷2期（2011 / 06 / 01）

165 - 181

繁體中文

研究倫理自從人體試驗委員會(IRB)創立以來，就以生物醫學之研究為關心。在第二次世界大戰中德國以及日本強迫戰俘當科學試驗品，嚴重的違背了人性之事蹟被揭發後，引起世界嚴厲的譴責，各國也感到保護參與科學試驗之人的安全之重要性，因之世界醫學會發表宣言並制訂了規範，來督導人體試驗之進行，但這個對研究倫理的要求所針對的是生物醫學方面之研究。社會行為科學之研究，雖然本質上便不需要受試者提拱人體組織如血液等檢體，也不必吃藥打針，是屬於一種非侵入性的研究，但從1990年代中期開始，社會及行為科學的研究須要倫理審查之聲音就越明顯，美國也開始加以審查，因為人的生活習慣與健康緊密相連，而研究調查及試驗過程中，對受試者的傷害不是只有生理上的而已，傷害也有可能是心理的、社會的、物質的、甚至靈性的等。本文除敘述研究倫理的歷史淵源外，也探討傷害的種類以及在社會行為科學的田野調查和研究中所可能產生的傷害問題並討論現在台灣研究倫理審查會的概況。

The attention of research ethics has centered on biomedical experiments since the establishment of the Institute Research Board (IRB). The concern of research ethics was motivated by the violations of human rights during World War Ⅱ, when prisoners of war were used as guinea pigs for biomedical experiments carried out by German and Japanese authorities. Three important documents had been issued to remind the world that human subject protection is a must in any scientific experiment.This concern toward the safety of those participating in research extended to social and behavioral sciences in the late 1990's. Although social behavioral research is regarded as non-invasive as participants are not required to donate tissue samples or to take newly invented drugs during the research, potential harm, however, exists. Social behavioral research often uses surveys to find out how a person's habit and lifestyle affect one's health: therefore, some confidential questions are asked. These procedures run the danger of putting the respondents in possible harm either materially, socially, psychologically or even spiritually.This paper will first examine how research ethics became important and then discuss why research in the fields of social, behavioral and human sciences are required to be reviewed by the IRB so that human subjects can be protected.

1. (1981).President's commission for the study of ethical problems in medicine and biomedical and behavioral research.U S Code Annot U S.
2. Torres CE: Overview of international guidelines in research ethics. Available at: [http://www.jirb.org.tw]
3. Human research ethics policy guideline: Human research shall include all processes seeking to acquire, analyze and investigate human tissue or information conceming individual behavior, thinking, physiology, psychology, sociology, genetics and medicine for the purpose of research. Department of Health of Taiwan..
4. Pines M: Seat belt andHelmet Laws decrease auto accident injuries. Car Technology 2008. Available at: [http://seriousaccdents.com/blog/car-technology]
5. Available at: [http://www.usask.ca/research/]
6. (1973).The final report of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study ad hoc panel to the Department of Health, Education and the Welfare.Washington DC:Public Health Service.
7. Diener, E.,Crandall, R.(1978).Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
8. Freyhofer, H.H.(2004).The Nuremberg Trial: the Holocaust and the Origins of the Nuremburg Medical Code.New York:P. Lang.
9. Gold, J.L.,Dewa, C.S.(2005).Institutional Review Boards and multisite studies in health services research: Is there a betterway?.Health Serv Res,40(1),291-308.
10. Goodgame, A.,De Vries R.,DeBruin, D.A.(2004).Ethics review of social, behavioral and economic research: Where should we go from here?.Ethics Behav,14(4),35-68.
11. National commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research(1978).Reports and recommendations: Institutional review boards.Washington DC:Govemment Printing Office.
12. Tai, M.C.(2007).Medical Ethics and Humanities.Taipei:Kaoli Publishing Co Ltd..
13. Veatch, R.M.(ed.)(1989).Medical Ethics.Boston:Jones and Bartlett.
14. Wood, A.,Grady, C.,Emanuel, E.J.(2004).Regional ethics organizations for protection of human research participants.Nat Med,10(12),1283-1288.

1. 郭金芳(2014)。運動口述史田野工作的經驗反思。臺灣體育學術研究，57，47-70。
2. 郭憲偉(2014)。沉浸於田野場域的自我反思。臺灣體育學術研究，57，31-46。