RISING STAR ! The ultimate source to ace your NYPD Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain Exam Visit www.RisingStarPromotion.com to order our questions specifically designed for maximum retention of the Patrol Guide--plus full-length exams!

I think this thread is way off base.

Maybe if question 12 involved being injected with the latest flu vaccine as a human trial and number 105 asked if you were experiencing headaches or ear swelling, would this relate to a civil service exam.

            This is my first post on this forum, but I needed to get some information out to the MOS that took the recent SGT Test.  This is a good way of disseminating this information throughout the ranks in a timely manner, as I know many read this forum.  I am NOT a troll, not do I have any personal interest in the results of this exam.  I am simply here to help out other MOS that have been wronged by the recent move by DCAS.  I have already passed two promotional exams, so I have no personal gains in this fight, but I pay my efforts forward to all the up and coming future of the NYPD.  I know this is long, but bare with me, as it will all make sense as you continue reading.  Good luck to all that took this test, and everything that can possibly be done is in the works to rectify this horrible excuse for a promotional exam that was given.

            The National Research Act of 1974 specifically regulates the use of human research.  DCAS has stated that the extra 30 questions that were added to the exam were for "research" purposes, which in turn mandates them to follow the law regarding the use of human subjects for research.  Furthermore, the New York State Public Health Law further reiterates the legal requirements for the conduct of human subject research.

            One of the primary requirements for the conduct of human research is informed consent.  Informed consent must be obtained from all human research subjects, and it must be in writing.  Also, subjects must have the ability to not participate in the research or discontinue participation in the research at any time during the research.  By DCAS forcing the examinees to complete all the questions in the test booklet because the "research" questions were unidentified, you were not given an option to not participate in the research, or to discontinue participation.

            Also, if the 30 additional questions were truly for gathering research, it should have a documented research proposal.  In this proposal would include such topics of, but not all inclusive, as a research hypothesis, background on the hypothesis, definition of pertinent concepts of the research, identify the dependent and independent variables of the research, identify the sampling method of collecting the data, identify the method of analyzing the data, identifying potential risks to participants and developing mitigating controls to minimize those risks, and many others.  If this so called research proposal was never completed or published, or was never reviewed or approved, then the concept of the additional research questions was a ruse in its entirety.  Either DCAS was actually conducting research, in which it must follow human research laws, or DCAS was playing games with the exam and using the guise of research as an excuse.  Either way, DCAS has backed themselves into a corner.

            It doesn't matter if DCAS gave instructions on where the research questions were or even that they attempted to cover themselves by sending out an amended Notice of Examination.  They plainly violated research laws and that is the only relevant information.  The law is the law, and no government agency can violate it, no matter what their thought process was behind it.  Honestly, I think that someone just dropped the ball, and used the term "RESEARCH" inappropriately.  However, the term is the only fight that there is.  Research must be conducted in accordance with appropriate regulations, and if violated, I don't see how this test would stand up.

            As of now, I know for a fact that this information was already forwarded to the Robert Gonzalez, of the Deputy Commissioner of Training, PBA President, and others that will remain unnamed at this point in the highest echelons of the NYPD.  The NYPD Brass did not know of this last minute additional questions, and at this point, there are many that are perplexed.  I have provided some information regarding this matter and its being further researched to ascertain if DCAS is compliant with the guidelines and regulations regarding human research, and only time will tell what happens.  Let's get this information out there and band together for this highly unethical move by DCAS, and prevent them from trying a silly stunt like this in the future.

This is the actual New York State Public Health Law

    §  2442. Informed consent.  No human research may be conducted in this state in the absence of the voluntary informed consent subscribed to  in writing  by  the  human  subject.  If the human subject be a minor, such consent shall be subscribed to in writing by the minor's parent or legal guardian. If the human subject be otherwise  legally  unable  to  render consent,  such  consent  shall be subscribed to in writing by such other person as may be legally  empowered  to  act  on  behalf  of  the  human subject.  No  such voluntary informed consent shall include any language through which the human subject waives, or appears to waive, any of  his legal  rights,  including  any release of any individual, institution or agency, or any agents thereof, from liability for negligence.

§  2443.  Conduct of human research.  No one except a researcher shall conduct human research in this state.

§  2444.  Human research review committees. 

1. Each public or private institution or agency which conducts, or which proposes  to  conduct  or authorize,  human  research,  shall  establish  a  human research review committee. Such committee shall  be  composed  of  not  less  than  five  persons,  approved by the commissioner, who have such varied backgrounds as to assure the competent, complete and professional  review  of  human research  activities conducted or proposed to be conducted or authorized by the institution or agency. No member of a committee shall be involved in either the initial or continuing review of an activity  in  which  he has  a  conflicting  interest, except to provide information required by the committee. No committee shall consist entirely of  persons  who  are officers,  employees, or agents of, or who are otherwise associated with the institution or agency, apart from their membership on the committee, and  no  committee  shall  consist  entirely  of  members  of  a  single professional group.

 2.  The  human research review committee in each institution or agency shall require that institution or agency to promulgate  a  statement  of principle  and  policy  in  regard  to  the  rights and welfare of human subjects in the conduct of human research, and  the  committee  and  the commissioner  shall  approve  that statement prior to its taking effect.  The committee shall review  each  proposed  human  research  project  to determine  (1)  its  necessity;  (2)  that the rights and welfare of the human subjects involved are adequately protected, (3) that the risks to the  human  subjects are outweighed by the potential benefits to them or by the importance of the knowledge to be gained; (4) that the  voluntary informed  consent  is  to  be  obtained by methods that are adequate and appropriate, and (5) that the persons proposed to conduct the particular medical  research  are  appropriately  competent  and   qualified.   The committee  shall  periodically  examine  each  existing  human  research project with regard to the proper application of the approved principles and policies which  the  institution  or  agency  has  promulgated.  The committee shall report any violation to the commissioner. In addition to the voluntary informed consent of the proposed human subject as required by section twenty-four hundred forty-two of this chapter, the consent of the  committee  and  the commissioner shall be required with relation to the conduct of human research  involving  minors,  incompetent  persons, mentally disabled persons and prisoners.

3.  Each  person engaged in the conduct of human research or proposing to conduct human research shall affiliate himself with an institution or agency having a human research review committee, and such human research as he conducts or proposes to conduct shall be subject to review by such committee in the manner set forth in this section.

Gamblor,

You are wrong.  Look up the definitions, and it is not only for medical research.  Yes it includes medical research, but it also includes ANY research where a human subject is subjected any environmental influence.  Are you familiar with the Harvard experiment regarding correction officers and prisoners?  That is not medical research.  That is social science research.  That is also protected by the National Research Act.  Dr. Robert Gonzalez, who has a degree more than I do, also agrees that it appears DCAS may have violated that ACT.  Do your research before you dismiss something so blatantly.

thanks your the info.

Ohnoes,

I appreciate the effort, but Wikipedia is hardly an acceptable or vetted academic source.  That is correct, the National Research Act was partly a result of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, among others.  However it is NOT solely for medical research.  Social science research is covered as well by the Act, and what DCAS did would qualify it as social science research!!! Period.

OP tomorrow morning going to DCAS.

Gamblor,

You sound like a nice and intelligent guy.  Do some research on the definition of social science research, and you will see it is not only based on human reaction.  It can also be based on human choice.  Whenever a human is given a choice, ie a multiple choice test question that induces thought and a decision, and those decisions are recorded, that IS social science research.  It doesn't have to be a record of the human reaction to a particular stimuli.  Social science research can be ANYTHING, as the definition is so broad.

Also, I am not here to stir up a pot, or get peoples false hopes up.  I am just stating the facts of the conversations that have occurred as of today.  I was also asked to post information about the conversations to get the word out to cops that talks were occurring regarding what, IF ANYTHING , could be done.  I am not by any means saying that anything will or can be done, simply that the matter is being evaluated by the highest levels of NYPD.  Dr. Gonzalez is very familiar with the Act, as it was a requirement for his dissertation for his PhD.  He agrees that he believes what DCAS did amounted to social science research, and its being looked into.  Will it go any further, I don't know.  If I get any updated information, I will be sure to keep people informed.  Again, I have no personal interest in this except for wondering if they pull this crap on the Captain exam next month.  I guess I will find out if I get an updated NOE.

WOW.... no wonder why NYPD is F'ed up.  Too many ignorant and childish members.  Again, I already passed two tests.... I don't need this test, so if anyone want to close this thread or delete it because they believe it bears no validity, by all means do so.  I was just attempting to pass on information that I knew.

These posts are getting more insane by the minute.  Dr Seuss is also looking into the exam.  Apparently, someone might have stuck a wocket in your pocket.

Gamblor,

I respect your opinion regarding the matter.  I spent a tremendous amount of time on this topic with my undergrad and graduate degree as well with research.  Like yourself, I don't have any stake in this exam either, I was just asked to get the information out there that was being addressed at the NYPD Dep Commission of Training Office.  At the end of the day, its not my opinion that matters.  I just thought NYPD members would be educated and mature enough to listen to a pending argument without being immature and utterly ridiculous. (Gamblor I am not referring to you).  Whatever the case is, I put the information out there as asked if I would, and I am done with the subject.  I also appreciate your opinion that it isn't applicable in this situation, as I feel that it is very subjective.  Some may feel it doesn't apply, some may feel it does.  Personally, I think that it does, however, again its not my interpretation that matters.  Anyway you look at it, I do respect your efforts in aiding the up and coming supervisors and I also agree with your advice that was given in your other thread.

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL93-348.pdf

That is the actual law cited as the National Research Act.

Seems very focused to biomedical and pysch research.

I feel like you guys need more doctors to look into this exam.  I have created a panel of some of the greatest minds in history.  They have all agreed to battle against DCAS, the NYPD, and COMMON SENSE.

Dr. Eric Banner... The Department wouldn't   Dr. Seuss.... expert on unfair rhyming used 

like him when he's angry                                 on promotional exams

Dr. EVIL... expert on negotiating          Dr. Robotnik... a certified genius with aspirations

settlements for large quantities of       of world domination. (not sure why he wanted on this panel)

money... perhaps 1,000,000 

Dollars.

Gamblor wrote:

---

CIDSA311A wrote:

---

Gamblor,

You are wrong.  Look up the definitions, and it is not only for medical research.  Yes it includes medical research, but it also includes ANY research where a human subject is subjected any environmental influence.  Are you familiar with the Harvard experiment regarding correction officers and prisoners?  That is not medical research.  That is social science research.  That is also protected by the National Research Act.  Dr. Robert Gonzalez, who has a degree more than I do, also agrees that it appears DCAS may have violated that ACT.  Do your research before you dismiss something so blatantly.

---

 Again, this isn't medical or social science research.  It is research on the questions themselves, not a human's reactions to them, which is entirely legal and standard practice on an abundance of exams.

The problem with these types of posts is it instills a great deal of misguided false hope on some desperate individuals who may have failed the exam and are looking for any reasoning possible to maintain the illusion that they have a chance.  The simple fact is, if you failed this test, then you take it again when it is next offered.  No amount of letter writing, debating, calling, emailing, or paying attorneys will change that.

 

This is common on every test.  Go through the archives for the past exams and you will find the same thing.  In a few days, someone will start a "collection" to pay some attorney.  When considering that, read the posts from every other test when it happened there and take a look at how well that money was spent.

---

 That was social science research in the test taking of cops

All joking aside, I'm sure all of you guys did great that put the time in.