The potential harm does not involve what we undertake or not undertake, but what questions we ask the human subject. For instance, asking the participant about their personal background could upset that person. I know this is true because it has happened to me. I have seen three different counselors, but by the third one I decided that I was tired of repeating everything that I had told the previous two counselors. Because it would just upset me more each time I repeated it over and over again, so I would just shut down and not talk at all. After that I asked my psychiatrist if he could do something about it, so he told the counselor that I don’t have to say everything again. In his research, he had included the participants’ names and addresses. He placed the men in jeopardy because when he did the research …show more content…
In the Brajuhas case, he was doing an observation research as a waiter in a restaurant. But when the restaurant burned down, some investigators suspected that Brajuha’s notes would help identify the person that started it. When the local prosecutor subpoenaed the notes, Brajuha refused to give them to anyone. He received many threats of jail time, but they never were carried out. When the main suspects in the arson case died, the prosecutor dropped the entire case. Whereas in the Scarce case the ALF raided the Washington State University Research lab while Rik was on vacation. The damage was estimated to be around $100,000 dollars. He was subpoenaed to appear in front of the Grand Jury. He answered most questions except the ones that would require him to give confidential information about his research subjects. Consequently, he was sent to jail for being an unwilling witness. He spent over 5 months in jail until the judge decided that he can’t force Scarce to testify. The judge then released Scarce out of