Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms

Author:

McDermott RoseORCID,Hatemi Peter K.ORCID

Abstract

In 1966, Henry Beecher published his foundational paper “Ethics and Clinical Research,” bringing to light unethical experiments that were routinely being conducted by leading universities and government agencies. A common theme was the lack of voluntary consent. Research regulations surrounding laboratory experiments flourished after his work. More than half a century later, we seek to follow in his footsteps and identify a new domain of risk to the public: certain types of field experiments. The nature of experimental research has changed greatly since the Belmont Report. Due in part to technological advances including social media, experimenters now target and affect whole societies, releasing interventions into a living public, often without sufficient review or controls. A large number of social science field experiments do not reflect compliance with current ethical and legal requirements that govern research with human participants. Real-world interventions are being conducted without consent or notice to the public they affect. Follow-ups and debriefing are routinely not being undertaken with the populations that experimenters injure. Importantly, even when ethical research guidelines are followed, researchers are following principles developed for experiments in controlled settings, with little assessment or protection for the wider societies within which individuals are embedded. We strive to improve the ethics of future work by advocating the creation of new norms, illustrating classes of field experiments where scholars do not appear to have recognized the ways such research circumvents ethical standards by putting people, including those outside the manipulated group, into harm’s way.

Publisher

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Subject

Multidisciplinary

Reference49 articles.

1. D. L. Teele , Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences (Yale University Press, 2014).

2. Field experiments across the social sciences;Baldassarri;Annu. Rev. Sociol.,2017

3. R. Meyer , Everything we know about Facebook’s secret mood manipulation experiment. The Atlantic, 28 June 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/. Accessed 9 November 2020.

4. B. Lerner , Three identical strangers: The high cost of experimentation without ethics. Washington Post, 27 January 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/27/three-identical-strangers-high-cost-experimentation-without-ethics/. Accessed 9 November 2020.

5. M. Wood , OKCupid plays with love in user experiments. NY Times, 28 July 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/technology/okcupid-publishes-findings-of-user-experiments.html. Accessed 9 November 2020.

Cited by 21 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3