Case study 2 involved investigators who analyzed 30 random prisoners and their relationship between traumatic childhood experiences and the effect on interpersonal relationships in adulthood. Individuals were given the opportunity to decline participation.  A consent form was signed, and detailed demographic information such as age, race, sex, and education were obtained as well as the type of childhood trauma that was encountered and the participant’s current interpersonal relationships.  This was done in a face to face interview.

I believe the researchers in this study were at a minimal risk for physical abuse.  If the prisoner was unstable or had a very bad childhood experience it could bring up PTSD symptoms, therefore making them violent.  If a guard was present this may help minimize any physical abuse.  The prisoner or participant is at a minimal risk, mainly being psychological harm.  The memories may bring up a negative perception of self, emotional suffering (anxiety or shame), aberrations in thoughts or behavior.  They also may have distress, anger, or guilt related to disclosure of sensitive or embarrassing information  (National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2006).  The sample size of 30 is rather small.  These individuals may be identified even if no direct identifiers are maintained.   An IRB should be concerned about threats to privacy, breaches in confidentiality, and psychological risks (National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2006).  As for society in general, I see no potential risks.

The researchers would have gathered this information and could have possibly seen a cause and effect trend in relation to the trauma and the interpersonal relationships.  I do think the sample size is too small though.  The participant may indirectly benefit from talking about their past and how they are now with interpersonal skills, but this is not a direct benefit.  These types of indirect benefits should not be taken into consideration in the risk/potential benefit analysis (National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2006).  Society in general has a potential benefit in that if there is a relationship between childhood trauma and poor interpersonal relationships then interventions can occur at the beginning levels of the trauma to help the person cope properly and have good interpersonal relationships.

I believe this case would require a full IRB review.  Research involving a vulnerable population such as prisoners are permitted only if the research is no more than minimal risk and are described as no more than minimal risk and no more than an inconvenience to the subjects (National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2006).  The risks of harm to the researchers, and the prisoners need to be weighed against the benefit to society. After an in depth look the IRB would determine whether or not to proceed with the research study.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (June 13, 2006). Chapter 4, Assessing risks and potential benefits and evaluating vulnerability. Report on ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants vol 1 report and recommendations. retrieved from: https://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8033.aspx#exhibit4-2