Who makes sure that research is done ethically? And what does that even mean?
In my work as a cognitive neuroscientist, I’ve seen hundreds of participants in my experiments. I’ve presented them with search displays, images of cows, sequences of beeps, and flashing visual stimuli. Sometimes, these experiments include additional measures: I might track their eye movements and ask them not to blink for extended periods. I often have them wear EEG caps, using gel to improve the connection between the scalp and the electrodes. In short, I ask a lot from my participants to gather the data I need. And I’m not alone: in the past academic year, over 350 studies were registered at the Heymans Institute, the research institute of psychology in Groningen. In these studies, researchers come up with all sorts of unusual requests for their participants, some even weirder than mine.
So, who decides researchers can do this? How do we ensure participants aren’t drawn into experiments they don’t want to join? Who determines if research is conducted safely and thoughtfully? And what happens to all the data?
For a little over three years now, I’ve also been a member of the Ethics Committee Psychology (ECP). This committee is responsible for ensuring that research at the psychology department is conducted ethically, addressing questions like those above. One of the more surprising things I have learned on this committee is that, as a researcher—and as a participant—I was largely unaware of the systems, laws, and protocols in place. Now, viewing research from both sides, I have a new perspective on all this.
In this post, I decided to give an informal overview of what a committee like the ECP actually does. How is a study evaluated, and what rights and laws come into play? And what else goes through the mind of an ECP member when they review a study?
What does the ethics committee do?
Before researchers can start collecting data, they submit a proposal to the ECP. This proposal includes various details: who is on the team, when the study will begin, what participants will experience, and so on. The ECP reviews these proposals and advises researchers on necessary or suggested improvements before giving approval to proceed. But what defines “ethical research”?
NETHICS
Since 2016, ethics committees in the Netherlands that are affiliated with faculties of social sciences and psychology can refer to a national ethics code, developed by the National Ethics Council for Social and Behavioural Sciences: the NETHICS Code. This code was formally accepted by deans across the country as a pledge to uphold ethical standards in their institutes and as a guiding document for ethics committees reviewing studies. Ensuring that proposed studies adhere to this code is thus one of the ECP’s core responsibilities.
Even with such a code, ethical review is far from an exact science. For instance, guidelines in the NETHICS Code are often phrased with some flexibility, as in this example:
“It is plausible that the insights gained from the research are in proportion to conceivable burden and risks imposed on research participants.”
This phrasing leaves ECP members to interpret terms like “plausible” and “conceivable burden or risk” within the context of each study. Despite this flexibility, the NETHICS Code has standardized many procedures across ethics committees, allowing “risky” studies to be identified, explained, and addressed more systematically.
Data management and privacy
Between 2016 and 2018, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect for anyone processing personal data in the European Union, including universities. Psychology research almost always involves handling personal data, making GDPR compliance a central concern for the ECP. To address this, researchers prepare a data management plan. The ECP evaluates the plans to understand what types of personal data (including sensitive data) are being processed, how and when personal information will be removed, and where potential risks might arise that data gets exposes to third parties.
You might expect that a law like the GDPR provides specific instructions to avoid violations. However, it often leaves room for interpretation. For example, one core principle is that “only personal data which are strictly necessary regarding the purpose of the processing are collected.” Much like with the NETHICS Code, this requires the ECP to interpret terms like “strictly necessary” and apply the interpretation in the context of any study under review. Fortunately, the faculty has taken steps to guide researchers in meeting these standards. This includes the development of a faculty-wide data storage protocol to help researchers securely store and archive data.
Data management and privacy are now key aspects of ECP reviews, which makes sense: ensuring legal data handling that respects participants’ rights is part of ethical research. That said, GDPR compliance isn’t necessarily our area of expertise. To support this, we work with other faculty departments, especially the Privacy & Security division and Data Stewards from Research Support, who oversee legal and practical data management concerns. They, in turn, collaborate with the General & Legal Affairs department and the Digital Competence Center (CIT). Since all study proposals go through the ECP first, our review often serves as the initial checkpoint in the process.
Communicating to participants
After ensuring that a study’s design and data management plan are ethical and legal, there’s one more crucial part of the review process: communication with participants. The foundation of almost every study we conduct revolves around informed consent: participants agree to take part after being properly informed on what the study entails. In this role, the ECP acts as a sort of advocate on behalf of participants, ensuring they are adequately informed about what the study will entail.
Some of this involves the more tedious routine checks, like verifying that all documents are consistent with each other. A common issue here is that the participant information form doesn’t align with the research plan. For instance, the form might claim, “all your data will be processed anonymously,” even though personal identifiers are actually collected. It’s not the most exciting part of reviewing, but catching these mismatches is essential to ensure participants are accurately informed – they have a right to know what happens to their data.
But sometimes, things get more interesting. For example, when a study includes uncomfortable or even mildly harmful stimuli or procedures, it raises a dilemma: can we fully inform participants about what they’ll experience without compromising the experiment’s validity? Here, we often need to find a balance between the researcher’s needs and the participant’s rights and interests to be fully informed. These situations are typically resolved through dialogue, combining different perspectives and different areas of expertise, to arrive at a suitable solution.
There’s another aspect of this process that I particularly enjoy. Researchers, immersed in their theoretical models and optimal study design, sometimes overlook basic information that participants might need. Here, it helps to have an ECP member take an outsider’s view. I remember a study where participants had to perform a series of physical tasks, some quite involved. I asked the researchers for one simple addition to the information sheet: “Please wear comfortable (sports) clothes to the experiment.” It’s a small thing, but I like to think it saved a few participants from unexpected discomfort…
Service
Conducting high-quality, ethical research at the Heymans Institute, with its high volume of studies, requires a careful balancing act. We juggle legal and ethical responsibilities, researchers’ needs, participants’ rights, and the importance of clear communication. I like to think of the ECP as a service committee, guiding researchers through this balance while representing participants’ perspectives even before a study begins. This role is formal and often bureaucratic, requiring researchers to describe, in detail, every potential risk before submitting a proposal. But beyond conducting reviews, the ECP strives to streamline this process, making it as efficient as possible for researchers and reviewers alike.
We focus on simplifying the review of many low-risk studies and on clarifying expectations for researchers in common scenarios where ethical codes may be open to interpretation. We also collaborate closely with Research Support, particularly on data management questions where their expertise complements ours. Through all this, we continuously reflect on our role, asking ourselves if we truly embody the “service committee” that we aim to be.
In the end, the ECP’s goal is simple: to help researchers get their work off the ground while keeping studies safe, ethical, and respectful of participants. We’re here to smooth out the process where we can, from the first draft of a study proposal to final approval, so that researchers can focus on the science while we make sure the ethics are in place. It’s a role we take seriously, but one we also see as a service—helping turn great research ideas into responsible, well-prepared studies.
Wouter is an Assistant Professor in the department of Experimental Psychology. His research covers topics including visual attention, time perception, temporal preparation, episodic memory. He studies these using Computational modeling, Psychophysics, and EEG.
