The Stanford prison experiment has always intrigued me - I
guess not only the Stanford experiment but also the Milgram shock experiment. Lacking
ethics on so many levels, it is disconcerting to consider that these
experiments took place in the 20th century and baffling further that
they occurred in the 1960’s and 1970’s. North America was amidst the me decade
- the peace and love era was still going full force. Feminism,
environmentalism, anti-war protests, and importantly the civil rights movement defined
the times. Of course, it was all about to change. All that touchy feely stuff
was about to go out the window. Did the Stanford experiment signal the
beginning of the end? Did this experiment reflect the beginning of a time of
disconnected research in which humanity would be viewed as secondary to
science? People in the Stanford experiment were clearly distressed and deeply
affected in extremely negative ways. That being said, I have to admit that I am
still intrigued. The scientific findings of this unethical experiment would
never have been discovered otherwise. In fact, ethics in science have likely
evolved more fully because of these kinds of experiments. Does this make it
right? Probably not - But still, we cannot erase their history and must honestly
consider whether it is really entirely regrettable when we think about the important
insight that such an experiment has revealed to us about human behaviour? Scientifically
rigorous data is often revealed despite corrupt ethics. I have a really hard
time reconciling this because we can all look back on these archaic experiments
with hindsight. Yet somehow, I do think that some experiments need to be
constructed a little less so ethically stringent. Sometimes proposals for good
experiments are rejected because control groups may not receive actual therapy
or medication because the expectation of obtaining treatment may be present. This
can be despite a clear directive by the scientist that not everyone will
receive therapy. Is this really an ethical dilemma or can some ethical rules be
so stringent that they more about being politically correct than doing what is
ethically acceptable? Are there grey areas of ethics and experiments that warrant
more consideration and flexibility in order to be explored more comprehensively
within research?
I think there are definitely grey areas and you give an interesting example about the expectation of treatment in a medical/health experiment. Maybe I'm being overly cynical but I suspect that in these litigious times, some research approval decisions are made as much with institutional liability and insurance concerns in mind as with those of ethical boundaries. And with good reason -- no university wants to get sued for harm done during research conducted under its auspices. Although to take it back to the Milgram experiment (and who knows how that would go down today) I think that many of the subjects later expressed gratitude for having been involved. I'm not aware of there having been any legal ramifications from the subjects.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting argument, and I have to admit I never considered it! However the humanist in me, cannot agree that the violation of human rights is warranted because of the potential to learn about behaviors. I understand that in some instances no real harm is being committed and institutional committees are just saving their own behinds, but I still believe it is important to have check and balances :).
ReplyDeleteI think a good way to compromise between advancing innovative research and remaining ethical toward research subjects is to use the risk matrix that Dean Sharpe was talking about today. He explains how a researcher can determine how risky their research might be by mapping the level of vulnerability the research can potentially cause its subjects by the level of riskiness the research topic itself poses. If the overall risk of the research is moderate to high, more people are required to oversee the research experiment to ensure that it remains ethical throughout. This seems like a useful way to perform checks and balances when conducting research that falls into ethically grey areas.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, though, what standards are used to determine the way risk is categorized. For example, one person could be conducting an experiment that, to him/her, causes no harm to the research subjects whereas someone else could say it causes at least moderate vulnerability to the group. Is there some sort of group discussion and debate among researchers to determine what level of risk a project poses? The examples Dean Sharpe gave today (e.g. asking children what a noun is vs. asking children about their perceptions of sexism) seemed to show clear boundaries between different types of risks, but I wonder if the divides are always this clear.
After Wednesday's class I was speaking to a friend who is writing an academic thesis for her Master's at U of T. She had (coincidentally) just received her ethics review. It said that while her study was ethical she was asked to change her approach because part of her methodology involved interviewing fellow students. The ethics review stated that even if she changed the identity of her peers they would still be able to identify themselves in her thesis, which will be published in hard copy for the library. This was frustrating because she really wanted to use her peers in the study and thought that the likelihood of them reading her thesis was slim. Regardless, this scenario presents an example of one of the many outcomes from an ethics review, one that might not be directly related to ethics but privacy.
ReplyDelete