I was in my Child Psych Class (TA) when this came up.

advicevice · 3 months

I think this old joke sums it up:

A project manager, a hardware engineer, and a programmer were in a car. Coming down a hill, a tire got a puncture, the car went out of control, and a bad crash was only narrowly averted.

The project manager wanted everyone to help draw up a plan of how to fix the car and carry on.

The hardware engineer wanted to change the tire and carry on.

The programmer wanted to go back to the top of the hill, drive down again, and see if the problem happened again.

It points out the three basic ways you can handle a problem. Analyze it, fix it and recreate it.

So we can analyze serial killers after an incident, lock them away and forget about them or try to create one. The last one being the most ethically challenging, but also providing the most data.

Basically, we let other people do the unethical work and let them take the fall, then learn from what they did. I think the better question is is it ethical to use work that was obtained unethically. No matter how careful we are in the future some experiments will still go awry causing unintended consequences like the Stanford Prison experiment and Milgram's authority experiment.

notthatclever · 3 months

Part of why codes of ethics exist is to insure that experiments done are purely about the science and not about achieving retribution on a person society has deemed to be evil. If experiments like the one proposed, where the participant is purposefully exposed to trauma, are conducted, then psychologists and psychology researchers become, as Thomas Szasz might argue, the norm police. There are parts of society that exist, the justice system, to deal with individuals like you described and as difficult as it may be, psychologists must follow their ethical code. If they don't, then Psychology will lose its credibility as a legitimate science that has a lot to offer the world.

Theodore_Brosevelt · 3 months

I think that without unethical experiments, scientific knowledge wouldn't be where it is today. Scientific exploration is about fact-finding, and ethics don't strictly lie within facts. Many times, unethical situations can teach us about the lengths of human endurance, and how we will react to certain situations. If no one had ever reached those points, we wouldn't have any information about their reactions, and would have no data from which to draw an inference of the human condition.

oddmanout · 3 months

This came up in one of my classes, it was a senior level class where we studied literally hundreds of experiments. Over time someone asked (I think it was when we were covering Little Albert) and the response was something along the lines of "we can't really do those anymore, it sucks that this happened to Little Albert, but we really did learn a lot. It seems like they got a lot covered before the ethical laws were in place, they can't go back to that, but they can still use the data they gathered.

happinessinmiles · 3 months

Well to a degree, any deviance from the norm was seen as unethical. (cutting up a dead body was shunned by the Church for a long time!) There will always be bad things happening that we must study afterward to understand. If it never happened in real life, we'd never have to study it. Mostly, I think about the examples of ferral children. Scientists never made them grow up ostracized, but benefited from studying them in the end.

Did the people who conducted the Stanford Prison experiment mean for it to be so unethical? They certainly didn't stop it when it started going that way.

I don't know. I think this is a really interesting question!

atlas44 · 3 months

We benefit from any knowledge, no matter the stigmas regarding its genesis. We would not have validation for a lot of theories if it weren't for these unethical experiments. However, I can't think of any field outside of psychology where unethical research would be necessary or relevant. And the fact is, there are many people in the world that view our current research with animals as unethical. The research has to benefit a significantly large population (i.e. all of humanity) and only be detrimental to a small group, in order for it to be considered ethically acceptable. But how does one determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs? And who should be the one to say? It's really a question of subjective perspective, and there is never going to be a clear-cut answer.

As for the continued use of unethical research, I don't think it is really necessary. Statistical method allows us to study many behaviors that we would otherwise be unable to view in a scientific manner. And in my honest opinion, there isn't a whole lot of necessary information left to gather from the population. At least, none that can't be garnered from studying the brain itself. I think we are in the middle of a paradigm shift from looking at the population as a whole, into understanding individual differences. That is the more current area of interest, and any question of ethics will invariably involve the use of brain-scan technologies. It's likely that these technologies will continue to develop and will bring with them a whole new set of ethical dilemmas.

TitusAndroidicus · 3 months

Breakthroughs in science, especially social sciences, seem to always walk that fine line between unethical and groundbreaking. I have a hard time putting "ethics" in the hands of scientists. Scientists specialize in discovering new things about ourselves, not determining what's ethical when it comes to experiments. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be limitations, but the limitations that are set by the IRB right now really smother potential for a lot of great experiments.

dysreflexia · 3 months

I don't think humanity is capable of being completely ethical. So I think there will always be people to observe and cases to study. As far as creating or inducing situations though, I think placing ethical limitations on scientific study limits the growth of knowledge in society. It might be more humane, for example, to ensure that no humans are harmed or their freedom taken away in an experiment, however I'm sure we could learn far more, much faster, if we tested live humans and their body parts without regard for their individual lives.

Dr_Justice7 · 3 months

Where do I think we would be without these experiments?

We would be back where these experiments had not been done. -I know that sounds like I'm saying something to just speak, but think about it: We would still be asking the same questions and seeking the answers. It is inevitable that we wonder and ask ourselves these questions and so it would only be a matter of time before someone else went out and "experimented." There will probably be more heinous acts committed out of the need for answers but if the ones that have already occurred had not, there would just be a different starting place on the timeline.

Intervening trauma with trauma:

Again I use a blunt answer; trauma. The more someone is around something, the more they find it a normal and acceptable act. I remember speaking with people at bars and in the city- people that were on hard drugs and had been for extended periods of time. They seem to believe that being on hard drugs was just something that people did. That it was a regular, normal thing and that it was acceptable to everyone. They have no problem talking about it with strangers and sharing experiences and stories. But if I asked them if they had always felt that way and been so open, every single one would recall how paranoid they used to be and how they would hide and try to keep it from the world and the people they knew.

If someone with traumatic experiences were affected by more traumatic experiences, they would become less affected each time and develop immunity. We are human; we evolve in accordance with our environment.

AdvanceHumankind

aibee · 3 months

This came as a response to a hypothetical retort to a local 18 year old girl who sadistic pre-meditated murder on a 9 yr old girl.

who sadistic pre-meditated murder

where da verb at?

RobotBuddha · 3 months

Where do you think we would be without the unethical experiments

It's been a long ass time since I've been in school. But I really can't think of any real world experiments that built upon or really attempted to verify those findings. Which pretty much means "exactly the same place" unless I'm misremembering. Which I easily could be.

ellevehc · 3 months

No. Science is never going to be completely ethical. Especially social experiments. This is mostly because ethics are subjective and based on cultural morality, which can fluctuate A LOT. So what may seem unethical to one person, may be rationalized as ethical to another.

The other aspect to remember is that all of science is dispassionate, and should be approached through a dispassionate intellectual perspective to get less unbiased data.

There are ways around this though, by sacrificing some error to ethics, the scientific field will still be able to infer the same concept from the results, albeit the experiment wont be as efficient and flawless, it will still answer the right questions if it has good construct validity.

Another thing is followup. If an experiment is unethical, but the followup makes up for the damages, then the total experiment is still ethically sound. Or, what I think is usually best, is that if an experiment needs to be unethical, and there is no other way around it, warn about all of the dangers before hand and allow the individual to choose his own level of ethics. Although it may cause a confound, it is better than traumatizing those who didnt want to be traumatized. I, personally, hate the idea that we have to baby everyone about their decisions. If I tell you the consequences, and possible implications, give you lots of time to decide, etc and you still decide to go through with it, it was YOUR choice. No one forced you. You will receive all and any followup help you desire, but the commitment and consequences are yours to handle. This is of course if the experiment is backed by many and isnt completely radical, but borderline questionable. There are some experiments that are obviously a violation of human rights.

What I DONT believe is ethical is forcing someone to do something against their will, or by tempting them with ridiculous resources. Such as offering a homeless man food and shelter to do an unethical experiment, that is a big no no. Another thing that I am very against is animal research that deals with pain. If a mouse has to feel pain, it better be a sound and supported experiment to cure cancer, HIV, etc.

Are they still necessary for true progression? Well, I think yes. However, I live in the American culture. Someone from another culture may think otherwise. What is the scale of ethics? Are you bettering all of humanity by giving someone a papercut? Or are you pulling a gigsaw (saw reference) setup to see how long it takes someone to say get me out. It is a scale. I believe ethics should never be determined by 1 individual, they should be agreed upon by a majority rule.

I dont think I understand your second question? Are you saying what would happen if the murderer girl who doesnt appreciate the significance of her damages is told to obey someone or die? Well regardless, I would have answered it relatively vaguely anyway. Treating a traumatized individual with another trauma, what would happen. Well, it depends. Lets say you have individuals A and B and traumas Z and Y. A has Y and is interacted with Z, A results with behavior G. B has Y and is interacted with Z, B results with behavior C. The point is that no two individuals are going to react similarly. Just because AY resulted in G doesnt mean that it will result in G ever again. There are hundreds of other variables at play. It may be that, for example, that girls mother or significant other got killed and that taught her the value of life and NOW she feels sympathy. Or her apathy may increase even more. It is impossible to tell unless you control the environment completely and know her biology perfectly, which is impossible. I have a very biological perspective, and I dont believe intervening trauma with any other therapy/social influence would do much good. Could it? Of course! Nothing is impossible. I just believe it to be improbable... We react to our environment with what we have, changing the biology is easier than changing the entire environment.

Anyway I could keep rambling on with my biased views forever but I am tired and have other homework

[deleted] · 3 months

Its seems like throughout history that the most horrible things have caused the greatest progression.

HappyUser001 · 3 months

I can't believe this made top post as this has been on my mind for years now. These experiments are the only one's I really remember as being most significant when I reflect on all the schooling and psych courses I received. When someone says: psychology experiments --these immediately pop in my head (I'd like to add Robbers Cave & A Class Divided to your list as well...though not quite as "unethical").

I WANT MORE OF THESE EXPERIMENTS!!! I have ideas for experiments but I know I would never be funded because of "ethical issues". Fuck the IRB! Fantastic potential discoveries about human nature are being hindered because an experiment might stress a person out, violate their will, or create a dilemma. BFD the vast majority of people in Milgrams and Zimbardo's experiments felt more enlightened by what they had come to learn from it.

I see it like this: Do the ends justify the means? Does the value of the scientific question posed outweigh the risks/negative effects to the subject? Zimbardo & Milgram: Definitely yes, Watson: so-so, Mengele: absolutely not.

MY TWISTED THINKING: I know this would never happen in the US, but maybe China would be down with my ideas :D. Okay, take the most sadistic twisted set of killers/torturers out there and put them up for experimentation. The standard would have to be very high, simply killing someone isn't enough, you have to be the sickest of sick and proven far beyond certainty that you are one of these people.

Next, put them up for experimentation. Cancer research, neurological implants, testing high risk drugs, cyborg parts, high risk surgeries, etc. The criteria is that no experiment can be unnecessarily cruel or have the intent to make them suffer. So electroshocking a subject to test something like blood pressure or the effects on an organ would not qualify as this is revenge/sadism under a guise of science. The science has to be of extremely high value but is far too risky to test on the public AND eliminates/reduces any unnecessary suffering.

AND HOW ABOUT THIS CRAZY GENIUS IDEA: Is there an afterlife? Nobody knows for sure, some say yes, others no. Near Death Experiences are the closest thing that suggests the possibility of one existing...the problem? There are many counterarguments saying these experiences are functions of a dying brain. Okay, then let's test this theory!

Prisoners on death row will be put under highly controlled conditions for a straight up RESURECTION. Deception would have to be employed so no prisoner would think to make up a story once brought back (they cant know they are going to be brought back to life). Put them to death using in a way maximized for likelihood for revival. Allow for official "brain death" to occur using whatever technology that can confirm this. The doctors would have to work like mad then as they have to prevent the possibility of irreversible organic brain damage. Doctors work their medical magic and BOOM the person is brought back to life. Then immediately take them away for questioning and an in-depth analysis of their experience...if any occurred. Repeat with many other death-row prisoners for years to come, or repeat on the same individual (with the risk of malingering however)

Unethical experiments = loads of potential discovery

ReeferEyed · 3 months

Well I'm sure we know how much the CIA and the military industrial complex benefited from MK Ultra and the research taken from the Japanese and Nazi scientists. Constructing society's collective hivemind through seriously unethical almost hidden studies.

margotpenek · 3 months

I do not think unethical work is ever justified. I wish in Psych classes people talked more about the consequences of unethical behavior -- the trauma suffered by the subjects in Zimbardo, Milgrim's classes, etc. What would happen to a scientist today -- stripped of title, disgrace, jail time, and so forth.

mndrw91 · 3 months

After reading most of these comments, I would first off like to thank you all for the comments and encourage more discussion as you see fit. Second I would like to make a few notes that I did not include in the original thread that I think should have been covered.

I was talking to a 'colleague' of sorts about this very same question. In the simplest and most realist way he responded "We don't need to drop and atomic bomb just to know that it will kill people." It is a really simple statement, that while it answers the questions of ethics it still poses challenges for future studies.

Someone earlier mentioned that it's a gap in the time periods and the consequences for racy and forbidden studies don't hold the same punishment because we have more 'light' on what to do and moreover what not to do. Some of you have already bingoed out this problem with the idea that scientists in general will tip toe the line of ethical/groundbreaking, facts/speculation, etc.

The question my colleague asked that truly gave me a hard time was this: "What do these studies offer us in the way of dynamic progression? They only confirm, at a high price, what we know to be true already like I said we don't need to bomb people in order to assess the lethality of bombs." I responded with the need for Zimbardo and Milgram for the human behaviors when authoritative and consequences are lost. I mean, without Zimbardo, and this may cause some controversy, most people wouldn't understand how the Abu Ghraib incident happened, or rather why and how it happened.

In any case, the question I now have to answer is in order to right some of the wrongs that have come out of the psychological field (cough Standardized testing and NCLB cough) I can't take student from a young age and shove them into field studies. I will note that it's not a fear of being unethical, as it is a fear of being halted before I can make a change for the better.

the_clever_cuban · 3 months

Unethical experiments while not right are essential to advancement. Even though people were harmed and lives were changed because of a psychologists mistake the findings are still legitimate and we would not be where we are today without them. That being said, it does not give anyone the right to say I am going to preform an unethical experiment because I think the results could be useful. These psychologists thought up their experiment and did not see them as necessarily unethical. We all have hindsight-bias and think "how could he/she ever do that to a group of people" but in the moment they may have not thought it was unethical which is the key. If people intend to harm other people then there is a problem. But, if a psychologist is trying to make a discovery and he believes his experiment it ethical but after finds out it wasn't all that we can do is consider the results and never replicate it.

Epoh · 3 months

IMO we are going to have to cross lines if we want to progress. Maybe not now and all at once, but it will probably be a gradual stripping of walls for the sake of progression. These lines when crossed will be as generous as possible in its process, but science will become more and more radical i believe.

FuckOffMightBe2Kind · 3 months

As someone who has tried to conduct a psychological study I can tell you that the IRB are hindering psychology. The reason people call psychology a 'soft-science' is because we usually don't have quantitative information but they're wrong. We're a soft-science because we aren't allowed to ask questions. How does it make sense that physicists are allowed to build a huge particle collider (LHC) that could do anything up to and including destroying the world and I can't make a study that observes how a few people react in extreme circumstances.

But to answer your question: No, we would not be where we are now without those immoral studies because if you aren't allowed to ask the question how can you be expected to learn the answer?

NealHatesMath · 3 months

Whoa. I have to write a paper relating to my major (Psychology), and my choice was writing about how ethical guidelines were/are created because of unethical experiments, even though those experiments brought about invaluable knowledge.

intilli4 · 3 months

I think the best answer to your question and how we learn/make decisions can best be answered by watching this video.

Watch from beginning to end to better understand

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login