Navigating ethical challenges in online wildlife trade research

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Biology Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1111/cobi.14341
Thais Q. Morcatty, Shan Su, Penthai Siriwat, Astrid Alex Andersson, Sadek Atoussi, Kim Feddema, Sergio Henriques, Jordi Janssen, Anushri Karve, Jennifer Pytka, Ruth M. Thompson, Vincent Nijman, Joss Wright, David L. Roberts
{"title":"Navigating ethical challenges in online wildlife trade research","authors":"Thais Q. Morcatty,&nbsp;Shan Su,&nbsp;Penthai Siriwat,&nbsp;Astrid Alex Andersson,&nbsp;Sadek Atoussi,&nbsp;Kim Feddema,&nbsp;Sergio Henriques,&nbsp;Jordi Janssen,&nbsp;Anushri Karve,&nbsp;Jennifer Pytka,&nbsp;Ruth M. Thompson,&nbsp;Vincent Nijman,&nbsp;Joss Wright,&nbsp;David L. Roberts","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The surge in internet accessibility has transformed wildlife trade by facilitating the acquisition of wildlife through online platforms. This scenario presents unique ethical challenges for researchers, as traditional ethical frameworks for in-person research cannot be readily applied to the online realm. Currently, there is a lack of clearly defined guidelines for appropriate ethical procedures when conducting online wildlife trade (OWT) research. In response to this, we consulted the scientific literature on ethical considerations in online research and examined existing guidelines established by professional societies and ethical boards. Based on these documents, we present a set of recommendations that can inform the development of ethically responsible OWT research. Key ethical challenges in designing and executing OWT research include the violation of privacy rights, defining subjects and illegality, and the risk of misinterpretation or posing risks to participants when sharing data. Potential solutions include considering participants’ expectations of privacy, defining when participants are authors versus subjects, understanding the legal and cultural context, minimizing data collection, ensuring anonymization, and removing metadata. Best practices also involve being culturally sensitive when analyzing and reporting findings. Adhering to these guidelines can help mitigate potential pitfalls and provides valuable insights to editors, researchers, and ethical review boards, enabling them to conduct scientifically rigorous and ethically responsible OWT research to advance this growing field.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.14341","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14341","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The surge in internet accessibility has transformed wildlife trade by facilitating the acquisition of wildlife through online platforms. This scenario presents unique ethical challenges for researchers, as traditional ethical frameworks for in-person research cannot be readily applied to the online realm. Currently, there is a lack of clearly defined guidelines for appropriate ethical procedures when conducting online wildlife trade (OWT) research. In response to this, we consulted the scientific literature on ethical considerations in online research and examined existing guidelines established by professional societies and ethical boards. Based on these documents, we present a set of recommendations that can inform the development of ethically responsible OWT research. Key ethical challenges in designing and executing OWT research include the violation of privacy rights, defining subjects and illegality, and the risk of misinterpretation or posing risks to participants when sharing data. Potential solutions include considering participants’ expectations of privacy, defining when participants are authors versus subjects, understanding the legal and cultural context, minimizing data collection, ensuring anonymization, and removing metadata. Best practices also involve being culturally sensitive when analyzing and reporting findings. Adhering to these guidelines can help mitigate potential pitfalls and provides valuable insights to editors, researchers, and ethical review boards, enabling them to conduct scientifically rigorous and ethically responsible OWT research to advance this growing field.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应对在线野生动物贸易研究中的道德挑战。
互联网访问量的激增为通过网络平台获取野生动植物提供了便利,从而改变了野生动植物贸易。这种情况给研究人员带来了独特的伦理挑战,因为传统的现场研究伦理框架无法轻易应用于网络领域。目前,在开展在线野生动物贸易 (OWT) 研究时,缺乏明确界定的适当伦理程序指南。为此,我们查阅了有关在线研究伦理考虑因素的科学文献,并研究了专业协会和伦理委员会制定的现有指南。在这些文献的基础上,我们提出了一系列建议,为开展负责任的 OWT 研究提供参考。设计和执行在线网络研究时面临的主要伦理挑战包括侵犯隐私权、界定研究对象和非法性,以及在共享数据时被误读或给参与者带来风险的风险。潜在的解决方案包括考虑参与者对隐私的期望、界定参与者何时是作者而不是研究对象、了解法律和文化背景、尽量减少数据收集、确保匿名化以及删除元数据。最佳做法还包括在分析和报告研究结果时保持文化敏感性。遵守这些指导原则有助于减少潜在的隐患,并为编辑、研究人员和伦理审查委员会提供宝贵的见解,使他们能够开展科学严谨、伦理负责的 OWT 研究,推动这一不断发展的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Biology
Conservation Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
175
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.
期刊最新文献
Misrepresentation of invasive species in the mass media with images of unrelated organisms Eliciting diverse perspectives to prioritize community actions for biodiversity conservation Show me the theory: Response to Birdsong et al. (2024) Systematic conservation prioritization with the prioritizr R package Impacts of ecosystem service message framing and dynamic social norms on public support for tropical forest restoration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1