The (APA) and TCPS, the researchers violated “Respect for

The purpose of this research experiment is to determine whether the techniques used in removing lead from houses reduces the incidence of lead poisoning in children. The methodology of this study is deeply flawed because it violates all the core ethical principals according to Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS). These core principals are “Respect for persons”, “Concern for participants’ welfare”, and “Justice-treat participants fairly”(Price, Jhangiani & Chiang 2013).     According to the American Psychology Association (APA) and TCPS, the researchers violated “Respect for persons Principal” with the set-up technique of the experiment of removing lead paint from homes. To choose whom will receive minimum, medium, high level repairs, completely removed lead and whom shall live in homes free of lead, violates this principal. The subjects cannot exercise their autonomy to freely choose whether their house will be the one free of lead. The study is not clear whether “Informed Consent” is given by the studied group or awareness regarding potential risks are made known. Since it impacts children the most- according to their study, and possible unprotected people, it violates the incapability of “exercising autonomy because of youth, cognitive impairment, other mental health issues or illness.”(Price, Jhangiani & Chiang 2013).    The first part of the experiment in question, the researchers show awareness of the potential risks when children are exposed to lead. Regardless, the researchers don’t ensure the subjects are outside of physical, psychological and social harm. It is a violation of “Concern for participants’ welfare” principal and Avoiding Harm (APA, 2017). To make matter worse, the researchers encourage and even offer incentives to landlords to encourage the subjects to continue to live in their lead exposed homes, in an unsafe environment. This also violates, “Justice – treat participants fairly” (Price 2013) and Offering Inducements (APA, 2017). This issue ties in closely with “Respect for persons” because, if the socio-status affects the living conditions of a subject, he/she may agree regardless the risk of his/her own, children, elderly, or unprotected persons that are involved in, for a materialistic gain- in this scenario a reduced priced rental for a lead exposed home in exchange for participating in the study. Not all subjects are equally benefiting from this experiment and  the researchers may show discrimination between the subjects, on a socio-economic level(Price, Jhangiani & Chiang 2013).    In order for an experiment proposal to be ethically sound, the researchers will have responsibility to conform to the core principles of the TCPS, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian privacy of information laws, and relevant federal and provincial laws (Price, Jhangiani & Chiang 2013). First, the researcher needs to inform the subjects of potential risks- those presented at the beginning of the study, and all the details of the study that will be conducted. Second, obtain all the subjects’ consent. If incentives are available, they should be distributed these equally and without prejudice. Since dealing with unprotected persons, the researcher will have to guarantee that parents or guardians comply ethically. The risks of the experiment outweigh the benefits, the researcher should not have the children exposed, or any people in order to verify the techniques used in removing lead from houses reduces the incidence of lead poisoning in children. then request blood samples from all the subjects.     I would request swab and collect samples from different areas of the house to establish where lead is present. Obtain blood samples from residents and if rats are found near the their homes, obtain blood samples from them also. There are strong jurisdiction around studies with animals (APA, 2017) introduction of new animals will not be necessary. If the results are positive for lead exposure, I would not allow the subjects to return to the lead contaminated homes.                         References    Price, P. C.,  Jhangiani,, R. S. & Chiang, I-C. A.(2013). Research Methods in Psychology (2nd             ed.). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from www.learn.macewan.ca/bbcswebdav/                pid-1633675-dt-content-rid-5623950_1/courses/007092-01-2181-1-AS03-10200/                A1%20Research-methods-in-psychology-2nd-canadian-edition.pdf. p.38-42.American Psychology Association (2017, January 1). Retrieved January 27, 2018, from www.a            pa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx