Ethical dilemmas in conducting qualitative, public health research on social media: using a study on Facebook as a case.

AIM: Platforms on social media are increasingly used for public health research. While social media provides an exceptional opportunity to explore communication about public health topics, this practice is not without ethical dilemmas. Our aim was to identify and unfold some of these dilemmas and to suggest possible solutions and ways forward for future research. METHODS: Using our own research within a closed forum for people experiencing suicidal thoughts as a case, we explored certain dilemmas and possible answers relating to whether what is to be researched falls under a public or private social media domain; we investigated avenues for obtaining access to participants in an evolving online environment; how to secure informed consent from participants; and ways of ensuring anonymity. RESULTS: We provide recommendations and reflections that we hope will offer inspiration for researchers embarking on similar social media public health research within and beyond suicide research. CONCLUSIONS: The ethical framework commonly referred to in health research, based on confidentiality, anonymity, informed consent and doing no harm must be adjusted to be relevant for a social media context where technologies and regulations are constantly being altered.

Franz Joseph Gall came to Copenhagen, and for a brief moment the brain was the talk of the town.

When the inventor of phrenology, Franz Joseph Gall, came to Denmark in the fall of 1805, he was met with great enthusiasm and fascination among the general public, as well as within the scientific community. His visit was an event that was covered by the newspapers unlike any other scientific lecture. However, as soon as Gall left, public interest in phrenology almost instantaneously vanished. Different theories have been put forth in the attempt to answer the question as to why phrenology never found a audience in Denmark. The Danish phrenologist Carl Otto explained it by referring to the poor quality of the Danish phrenological publications. Danish historians have argued that phrenology was too incompatible with the dominant scientific paradigm, Natürphilosophie. This article argues that the newspaper coverage of phrenology was more about sensational news stories than about science, and ultimately phrenology was a fad that wore off when the newspapers shifted their focus to other news.