the field of psychology, the belmont report has been supplemented by the american psychological association's (apa) ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. as of 2018, the apa's guidelines include the basics provided in the originally published belmont report, but also enhance and reinforce those established principles. just as the belmont report details the principles of beneficence, respect for persons, and justice, the apa details them further and expands the three initial guidelines into five: (1) beneficence, (2) respect for persons, (3) justice, with the addition of (4) fidelity and responsibility, as well as (5) integrity. the principle of fidelity and responsibility ensures that researchers establish trust and a sense of responsibility for their study and its possible repercussions. the principle of integrity furthers this concept into honesty and accuracy throughout all professional psychological endeavors. another area where apa guidelines move beyond the belmont report is in the setting of standards. the apa establishes standards for all reputable members of the psychology community (particularly those members of the american psychological association). the association sets a code of conduct for all apa individuals, which, when violated, can result in termination of professional licensure or membership. one of the most important standards detailed in the apa manual is the one that requires the induction of an institutional review board (irb), which serves the same purpose as outlined in the belmont report. an irb is responsible for interpreting the established principles and ensuring the ethicality of research done on humans. other standards are completely beyond the scope of the belmont report but have since been added to the apa manual. one such standard is the ethical treatment of animals (the report's full title being 'ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research'), something that has become a resurgent topic in recent years. the apa guidelines have evolved into a more modern approach to ethics in research, and are frequently updated (with nearly nine revisions since its original publication), building on the belmont report's foundation as new information becomes available and changes occur in opinion and societal acceptance. critique in a 2006 study by nancy shore, community-based participatory researchers were interviewed for their interpretation and critique of the belmont report. interviewees expressed concerns regarding the belmont report's ethical principles and interpretations as being one size fits all and advocated researchers to resist the tendency to rely on those principles systematically. it argues that the ethical analysis should be extended to take into account more appropriate factors, such as cultural, gender, ethnic and geographical considerations. debate continues over the ethics and regulations of research involving human subjects because of discrepancies over the meaning and priority of the belmont report's basic ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. notably, the belmont report does not specify how its three ethical principles should be weighted or prioritized. according to albert r. jonsen, a member of the national commission that composed the report, the institutional review board is charged with weighing these principles and deciding how they should be applied. matters become controversial when deciding if the principles should be interpreted as more or less weighty depending upon the particular circumstances of the research in question, if the principles should be viewed as an obligation that society must undertake on behalf of its members, or if it should be viewed as giving absolute priority to respect for persons' autonomy over the general good of society.