The recent success of Foldit in determining the structure of the Mason-Pfizer monkey virus (M-PMV) retroviral protease is suggestive of the power-solving potential of internet-facilitated game-like crowdsourcing. This research model is highly novel, however, and thus, deserves careful consideration of potential ethical issues. In this paper, we will demonstrate that the crowdsourcing model of research has the potential to cause harm to participants, manipulates the participant into continued participation, and uses participants as experimental subjects. We conclude that protocols relying on this model require institutional review board (IRB) scrutiny.
- Research Ethics
- Informed Consent
- Social Control of Human Experimentation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- A comparison of journal instructions regarding institutional review board approval and conflict-of-interest disclosure between 1995 and 2005
- Clinical Research From Proposal to Implementation
- Variations in institutional review board processes and consent requirements for trauma research: an EAST multicenter survey
- Stopping trials early for commercial reasons: the risk–benefit relationship as a moral compass
- Meeting the goal of concurrent adolescent and adult licensure of HIV prevention and treatment strategies
- Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial
- Analysis of warning letters issued by the US Food and Drug Administration to clinical investigators, institutional review boards and sponsors: a retrospective study
- Developing capacity to protect human research subjects in a post-conflict, resource-constrained setting: procedures and prospects
- Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?
- When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge