[Air-L] public private

[George Floros]

Ed Lamoureux said:

> My good friend Jeremy has even
> > taken the position that the people that produce these texts aren't
> > even subjects. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree.
>   
Jeremy Hunsinger said:

> They are 'subjects' just not the type of subject defined by human  
> subject research, which as I've said several times is clear, a  
> subject is someone you intervene with or someone whose private  
> information you have.   that is what the fed says they are.   THat  
> does not mean that they are not ethical subjects or that we do not  
> have certain responsibilities of care in our research, it just means  
> that for the terms of human subjects review, studying texts is not  
> studying human subjects.
>   
I can't agree with the definition of a subject as simply *someone* you 
intervene with or *someone* whose private information you have.
A subject should be a *unique someone* in one's research, a single 
person and not a single persona (unless of course your research design 
specifically addresses this issue of multiple personas). While the 
opinions expressed in a blog like Jeremy's can be attributed relatively 
safely to him, opinions in a forum or behaviors in an online world 
cannot be attributed to any single person. In my book, failing to 
convincingly address the issue of web anonymity is sloppy research. A 
signed consent form goes some way (but not all the way) in addressing 
this very real problem.

just my two euro-cents.

George Floros, MD
MSc Medical research methodology,
Thessaloniki , Greece.