In the name of science

Where do you draw the line that research is out of line? Because I recently heard about a study where a chimpanzee is constrained to a chair, and would be struck in the head with an object at various speeds. The purpose of this was to see that what part of it's head would show what kind of neural activity and other things. Since a chimpanzee's chromosome shares many similarities with people, this was conducted on the chimp rather than a human.

Science has taught mankind many things... and some at quite a price.

Asch's conformity experiments
Stanford prison experiment
Milgram's obedience experiment

In all those researches, the conductors have learned many things that were not expected but consequently, have caused mental distress to the subjects. Was the price of harming one individual worth the knowledge gained for the world?

There's quite a few more of those "disturbing" experiments out there. For instance, there's the baby experiment, where in the control situation the baby was squealing with a bunny. In the next series of tests, the psychologists showed the baby unpleasant stimuli along with fuzzy things. In the end, the baby was mortified by the bunny. Unfortunately we don't know what happened to the baby as he grew up. Another one was a kitten being raised to see only vertical stripes until it matured. At that point, it only reacted to vertical objects. It didn't react to horizontal objects, including a horizontal pencil waved up and down right before its eyes.

Also, society might as well be the Asch conformity experiment combined with Darwin's survival of the fittest, if you think about it. Knowing this, I would like to say I wouldn't mind tests like these IF the participant (or guardians of) was willing, whether paid or just "in the name of science".

(I saw a video of the prison experiment, and dang, everyone, including the psychologists, got sucked into it that they believed it to be real o.O)

Maslow's conditioning experiments (with the baby) were in the early 20th century, where there were no "limits" to experimentation. It was after his experiments+others that researches need to go through informed consent/debriefings/etc. The baby probably grew up being scared of everything with fur, but no one knows.

But even with ethical limits to research, it's hard to draw the line of what's right and wrong. Also, even if it is wrong, what if it was worth it? What if someone who can possibly find a cure for cancer but needs to injects a healthy person with cancer?

In statistics, there is always the question of what is ethical and what isn't. No matter how hard you try to make an experiment that uses live test subjects as ethical as possible, there will always be the few who go against it, but doing statistical analysis on live subjects is sometimes the only way to get meaningful resulfs. But, I am against experiments on any of the great apes and any other subjectively intelligent creature. A lot of medicine these days are tested on rats and live culture anyway. The real ethics question comes into place when you talk about stem-cell research and what one finds ethical another may not.

This is kind of funny because I actually did Asche's experiment on my psychology class the other day...

I pretty much draw the line on a direct negative impact on the ability of a reasonably intelligent creature to live. Reasonably intelligent creatures, to me, would mostly be higher forms of mammals. The only exception would be when a creature similar to a human would be needed to save a human life. For example, sending the monkeys into space before people is OK in my book.

Really though, the pursuit of discovery in science is extremely important and it should be among the highest priorities. There are many cases where things that wouldn't normally be allowed are for the sake of knowledge, and that's completely acceptable. I guess now I'll just wait for someone to come back with some ridiculous and clearly inappropriate example for me to say "That's not what I'm talking about."

In my opinion, as long as the subjects give consent and if he knows the possible consequences the research is still in line. Likewise, if the subject gives consent but does not know the possible consequences the research is out of line.

In the nature of animals and babies, obviously thy can not give consent. In this case the guardian or owner of these subjects would have to make the decision.

Of course, this has many flaws, but there's not really any clearer line than this one.

What's so bad about Asch's experiments?

Participants were clearly stressed and some must have been embarrassed by the procedure and suffered some loss of self esteem once they had been informed that it had all been a big con. This all constitutes ‘psychological harm.’

http://www.psychology4a.com/Social%20influence.htm

I don't remember if debriefing was introduced before or after his experiment, but research ethics are a pretty recent thing.

In my opinion, as long as the subjects give consent and if he knows the possible consequences the research is still in line. Likewise, if the subject gives consent but does not know the possible consequences the research is out of line.

Then... the results wouldn't be accurate. There have to be certain areas that are blinded sometimes in experiments. I learned in my Psych class that sometimes even the researchers can't know what the experiment is or the experiment would fail. (Because of certain selective biases.)

Look at my own personal experiment on SP: Random Poll
Basically, I gave people four choices to test what people would choose the most often. I conducted that experiment because according to statistics, the probability would be 25% in all categories. However, my hypothesis was that it would be polarized towards one of the choices, so I wanted to confirm that. (It's also why I'm pissed at the mods on SW for moving that to LoLMS where nobody would see it.)

In a way, my experiment worked:

77 people took the vote

17 people voted A 22.08%
14 people voted B 18.18%
32 people voted C 41.56%
14 people voted D 18.18%

However, it also failed, because I failed to determine the reason people chose C most often. (due to lack of replies).

You can definitely see from this though, that if I told people beforehand what the experiment is, then the results would have been skewed.

Then... the results wouldn't be accurate. There have to be certain areas that are blinded sometimes in experiments. I learned in my Psych class that sometimes even the researchers can't know what the experiment is or the experiment would fail. (Because of certain selective biases.)

Look at my own personal experiment on SP: Random Poll
Basically, I gave people four choices to test what people would choose the most often. I conducted that experiment because according to statistics, the probability would be 25% in all categories. However, my hypothesis was that it would be polarized towards one of the choices, so I wanted to confirm that. (It's also why I'm pissed at the mods on SW for moving that to LoLMS where nobody would see it.)

In a way, my experiment worked:

77 people took the vote

17 people voted A 22.08%
14 people voted B 18.18%
32 people voted C 41.56%
14 people voted D 18.18%

However, it also failed, because I failed to determine the reason people chose C most often. (due to lack of replies).

You can definitely see from this though, that if I told people beforehand what the experiment is, then the results would have been skewed.

Ah, yes, but you see, telling your subjects that they can die doesn't really have an effect. They may be scared, and quit, but the resolute ones will stay.

Other than testing on brave subjects, I don't really see how the results will change....unless you're thinking that the researchers will tell them what to expect in the experiment. But no, I'm thinking the researchers will tell them only what to do and what are the possible risks. How would that change the results?

sometimes researchers will only tell the subjects what to do and not tell them anything else. sometimes even the experimenter arent allowed to know whats going on. theyre only told to test and do [this] and nothing else.

biases and skewing experiments are really an big issue.

see/google: blind experiment and double blind. im tired of linking from wiki lol



edit: LOL AN BIG ISSUE

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]The way I look at it, better than bashing a human's head :/

[/COLOR]

Ah, yes, but you see, telling your subjects that they can die doesn't really have an effect. They may be scared, and quit, but the resolute ones will stay.

Other than testing on brave subjects, I don't really see how the results will change....unless you're thinking that the researchers will tell them what to expect in the experiment. But no, I'm thinking the researchers will tell them only what to do and what are the possible risks. How would that change the results?

Telling your subjects that they can die will cause the less resolute ones to quit. Therefore, you wouldn't be testing a representative sample, because you will prompt half the sample to quit, therefore, you'd be only testing 'selected' people.

And you don't think the results will change? In Zimbardo's experiment, it's possible that if only the braver people remained, they may not incorporate the conditions at all, rather, they might consider them above that and just sit in the corner and refuse everything. (After all, the guards were not supposed to harm the prisoners.) Thus, this would cause the participants to fail, because they are not fully participating in the experiment.

biases and skewing experiments are really an big issue.

It is. As a scientist, you don't want skewed results, you want representative results. Why would you only test something among a select group of people with similar personalities? It would be like (for a more extreme example), taking a poll on whether or not women enjoy sex, but then discarding all the results from the females.

Telling your subjects that they can die will cause the less resolute ones to quit. Therefore, you wouldn't be testing a representative sample, because you will prompt half the sample to quit, therefore, you'd be only testing 'selected' people.

And you don't think the results will change? In Zimbardo's experiment, it's possible that if only the braver people remained, they may not incorporate the conditions at all, rather, they might consider them above that and just sit in the corner and refuse everything. (After all, the guards were not supposed to harm the prisoners.) Thus, this would cause the participants to fail, because they are not fully participating in the experiment.

If you're referring to Zimbardo's experiment, the results would probably not of changed. The testers chose 24 out of 70 who were the most psychologically stable and healthy, aka resolute.

If you're referring to Zimbardo's experiment, the results would probably not of changed. The testers chose 24 out of 70 who were the most psychologically stable and healthy, aka resolute.

That's cuz they probably knew that the unstable would break down faster and the test was designed to be a length that even for the resolute, the length didn't happen.

There's some controversy on Zimbardo's experiment on what the purpose of the experiment was other than to harass it's subjects.

Anyways, let's say you're an experimenter. Why would you deviate from the sample that most accurately represents the population other than to keep your experiment alive (which in most cases, won't be necessary)?

What do you think my poll results would be if I had told the users the purpose of my experiment?

That's cuz they probably knew that the unstable would break down faster and the test was designed to be a length that even for the resolute, the length didn't happen.

There's some controversy on Zimbardo's experiment on what the purpose of the experiment was other than to harass it's subjects.

Anyways, let's say you're an experimenter. Why would you deviate from the sample that most accurately represents the population other than to keep your experiment alive (which in most cases, won't be necessary)?

What do you think my poll results would be if I had told the users the purpose of my experiment?

Yes, quite frankly. A human life is quite precious. That's the sole and strong reason for my argument.

And of course your results in your experiment would have been different. However, telling the users the purpose and telling the users the consequences are two entirely different things. They are not the same thing.

However, it also failed, because I failed to determine the reason people chose C most often. (due to lack of replies).

When in doubt, pick C.

Yes, quite frankly. A human life is quite precious. That's the sole and strong reason for my argument.

And of course your results in your experiment would have been different. However, telling the users the purpose and telling the users the consequences are two entirely different things. They are not the same thing.

And so we test on human life to discover its mysteries. When people decided it's unethical, they tested on animals. Then they decided it's unethical to test on animals. What then, are you going to test on? Also keep in mind that animals are not as mentally developed as humans.

Yes, it is the same thing. Suppose the following:

You designed an experiment where you want to test which areas of the brain are associated with relief. You would fire humans using a catapult and effects on their brain by scanning them immediately after. To carry out this experiment, you ask 100 people to participate in the experiment, in which all agree.

Before the experiment happens, you isolate the subjects, where they are taken one by one to the catapult. There, you blindfold them and tell them that they can potentially die in the experiment, and that their brains will be scanned shortly after they fall. They will likely be unconscious, however, might be in extreme pain if they do not lose consciousness. They cannot sue because the legal contract states that they are not responsible for any risk or injuries associated with the experiment. Thus, they MUST proceed with the experiment.

You load them into the catapult and you fire them. However, you do not tell them that there is a safety net on the spot they're going to land.

I'm pretty sure that you would agree that the results would be much more different if you had told them they cannot die from the experiment.

Holy crap. I just took the random poll without looking at the results and chose C. I think it might have to do with standardized tests and how C ends up being the most common answer. But then, why do they make C the most common answer in the first place? *dramatic music plays*

Yes, quite frankly. A human life is quite precious. That's the sole and strong reason for my argument.

And of course your results in your experiment would have been different. However, telling the users the purpose and telling the users the consequences are two entirely different things. They are not the same thing.

Rarely do you ever see experiments these days on humans that can potentially be life-threatening. Things like drug-testing go through many trials in bacteria cultures, then small mammals, and if it's deemed safe, then you've got human subjects. The consequences of such an experiment, if any, should be minimal to the subject to avoid subjects conceding from the experiment. If you only have the 'resolute' subjects left, then you will have a substantial amount of bias in your data.