Posts Tagged "spr"
Yet another clarification on ghosts and ethics
I have been asked to write another clarification by the admin on the ‘Society for Psychical Research (SPR)’ on Facebook group (who does not represent the SPR) regarding my views and opinions on their lack of an formal ethical code.
In response to my original blog post about this the admin posted a link to the SPR membership guidelines as though that was what I was stating was missing. However, it isn’t and I don’t think I have been understood.
I would like to point out here that I am an amateur researcher who has learnt everything I know about paranormal research from books, the internet and other more experienced people. I am not involved in formal research and don’t have expereince with formal ethical codes experienced in such a manner, yet I still do not believe that the Membership Guidelines of the SPR clearly state what is and isn’t ethical behaviour.
In section 6a the guidelines read:
Researchers are advised to consult fully with the subjects of their investigations prior to the start of an investigation, to keep within prearranged protocols unless there is full and free agreement with the subjects to a change of the protocol, and take due account of conditions under which investigations take place that might adversely affect a subject’s performance. They should also establish beforehand the framework for confidentiality and conditions of possible publication (e.g. as a courtesy, tested claimants should be informed about what is going to be said about them in a forthcoming publication). Researchers are advised to familiarise themselves as well as possible beforehand with the specific area they are researching, and to seek advice if in doubt during and after (eg. if there is suspicion of fraud) their research.
The SPR then link to the ‘Ethical and Professional Standards for Parapsychologists’ on the ‘Parapsychological Association‘ website. If this is the code of ethics that all of their investigators and researchers abide by, then I stand corrected, but it does not state this anywhere on the SPR site, and the site only refers to the PA paper as a good resource to read.
I understand that there are committees within the SPR that oversee different areas of research, but I cannot find any information online regarding how they set out their codes of ethics, or how they interpret potential problems. Do all research committees set out ethical codes in the same manner? If so, where is the framework for this taken from?
The SPR membership guideline page also suggests reading the ‘notes for investigators’ page on the SPR website. This outlines good protocol for their investigators to follow, but doesn’t really touch upon the potential for behaviour or research to become unethical.
It also doesn’t state when an investigator should and should not undertake a case. I’m not a member of the SPR (mainly due to the cost), and maybe that information is only available to members – but as far as I can see, as a member of the public, there is no set of guidelines on what constitutes good ethical behaviour and methodology on their site. That is the point I have been making all along.
On Facebook the SPR group admin said:
“The SPR has no power to dictate to investigators when they do not represent the SPR, even if they are members of it, the best thing is to provide guidelines for good practice. Members working through the SCC are often members of professional bodies and adhere to their organisations’ codes of ethics as well.
…I am reminded that the SCC has existed in its present form for over 30 years and has never had any kind of ethical issue during an investigation in all that time (and doubtless long before).”
This is sort of the point that I have been making all along. The person who stood up after my talk and said that the SPR do have a formal code of ethics in place was incorrect, and that was why I made the original clarification blog post – to clarify exactly what they were suggesting, and to clarify what I meant.
Although I am sure SPR research is ethical, I was merely highlighting the fact that there is potential for unethical behaviour and research to slip through the net due to personal interpretation of what is and isn’t ethical.
I should also say it was unfair of me to refer to the SPR as ‘ghost hunters’ along with all manner of ghost hunting groups, but I do refer to anyone that researchers ghosts as ‘ghost hunters’ simply because it seems to be the most universally understood term.
The potential for unethical behaviour to be a problem is more significantly present in unregulated amateur paranormal teams than it is organisations like SPR or ASSAP or similar, but there is still the potential there. I should have been more specific about the examples I was using.
When ignorance makes you look like a twat
I have often written about the awkward position I find myself in as a skeptical paranormal researcher who sits in between two groups of people with hugely opposing ways of thinking. Group one being skeptical people who require evidence before accepting something as possible, and group two being paranormal researchers who generally don’t.
My skepticism is often mistaken for non-belief or cynicism – which are both two completely unique things. Both a believer and a non-believer in something can be skeptical or cynical but people often can’t understand that my skeptical position isn’t a direct attack on their choice to believe a particular thing, and instantly form the conclusion that because I am a skeptic I in some way oppose them and everything they think and believe when that may not be true at all.
A rather unexpected accusation levelled in my direction on Facebook by Malcolm Robinson, a paranormal investigator and author who I’ve met on several occasions at paranormal conferences we were both part of, made me realise that such a view-point is stronger that I thought it was, and I am very disappointed by this.
Malcolm today posted a ‘note’ on Facebook about an email he received that suggested Asparagus could be a cure for cancer, the body of the text contained numerous testimonies about how Asparagus had helped people suffering from cancer and he claimed to post it ‘for debate’.
I cannot comment any more on the post as Malcolm has removed me from his Facebook friends, which is always a good way of encouraging debate…
I am somebody who requires proof past personal testimony before I accept something is viable. This is because testimonies can be misremembered, added to, made up or quote mined. When it comes to medicine I am hugely in favour of evidence based medication that has been through clinical trials and testing.
I pointed out to Malcolm that claiming to cure cancer without proper evidence is actually illegal, which it is under The Cancer Act 1939. I know this because I regularly make complaints to Trading Standards and the Advertising Standards Authority about misleading claims being made by alt-med practitioners. In the last week I have made TWO complaints about alt-med practitioners who claimed to be able to cure cancer which is awful.
I also mentioned that if Asparagus did cure cancer, doctors and professionals would be prescribing it to people suffering from cancer already. The response shocked me – I’ve included a screen cap below with it outlined in red.
The fact that I choose not to accept something at face value does not mean I have a closed mind or will not accept new information as and when it is presented. However, new information and claims needs to be able to stand up to scrutiny, and personal testimony alone does not provide enough evidence for reasons already pointed out above.
For me to choose not to believe a claim someone else has read in an email about something that might help those with cancer, doesn’t mean I would not recommend the treatment IF it was found to work after testing and trials, and to claim so is disgusting. This is life and death we are talking about here, not some pantomime setting where believers like Malcolm boo skeptics who say ghosts don’t exist (I’ve witnessed that by the way, the skeptic was Richard Wiseman, who wasn’t even present) and where it’s okay to say ‘If people choose to believe in ghosts then there’s no harm‘, because to claim something might cure cancer when there isn’t substantial evidence to prove so IS harmful. If it does work then yes, that’s cool, but if it doesn’t then people have been provided with false hope and could have concentrated their time and effort on something that provided results.
It’s not a risk that is worth taking at all. It provides people with false hope and can kill them. It’s that simple.
I’ve lost very close relatives to cancer and even years later the pain of their loss is still raw and to think that there are people who would have offered my relatives false hope angers me more than people probably think possible, especially as I know it does happen. That is why I am so vocal about evidence based medicine and tackling misleading claims – and to treat my skeptical mindset as close-minded and as a blanket dismissal is ignorant of what skepticism is.
Malcolm wasn’t claiming this WAS a cure, but he was suggesting it could be possible without providing further evidence. Wether he posted it for debate or not, it was misleading information and to delete me from his facebook friends meant that I couldn’t continue the debate he claimed he was so desperately seeking.
Shameful.
Oh, and just for you Malcolm are the damning links that will put your ‘debate’ to rest. Proof that Asparagus probably doesn’t cure cancer. I’m shocked that a researcher such as Malcolm didn’t even bother to check Snopes or UrbanLegends. Again, shameful…
Check it out…
