How have scientific research practices using human subjects come to be defined as morally acceptable or unacceptable? This doctoral dissertation improvement project uses historical and ethnographic methods to explore this question, with a focus on the social and behavioral sciences, which are often neglected in research on research ethics, and on the practice of deception. The project explains first how specific federal regulations on the treatment of human subjects were crafted in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s. Integrating materials from three archives, the historical section gives attention to the interests and epistemological assumptions (for example, different ideas about human nature dominant in various disciplines) that were built into the federal regulations. The second part of the project analyzes how members of university Human Subjects Committees interpret these federal regulations in everyday practice. This section analyzes interviews with the chairs of Human Subjects Committees (also called Institutional Review Boards or IRBs) drawn from a national sample (n=30) and observations of the meetings of three university IRBs over the course of one year, as well as interviews with the three boards' members. This section asks how board members go about evaluating research protocols, justifying these evaluations to their colleagues, and collaboratively mandating specific changes to scientists' research proposals. This project contributes to several literatures. It addresses questions raised by sociologists and historians of science about the influence of moral commitments on scientific knowledge production. In addition, this project responds to a growing interest in the sociology of deliberative groups like IRBs and funding panels. Finally, this project aims contribute to a better understanding of the mechanics of IRB decision-making. While existing research on IRBs primarily reports findings from surveys and suggests that material investments will improve the shortcomings of IRBs, this project analyzes processes within IRBs and could potentially offer practical suggestions to IRBs working within funding limitations and time constraints.
