Ethical considerations of an experiment are the “difficult issues” raised by it that need to be taken into account since nowadays “researchers are bound by both law and conscience to treat their participants ethically” (Kalat, 2014, p. 46). To define the term “ethical treatment,” organizations that are concerned with research (for example, APA) provide relevant guidelines. Also, if a study is carried out in a college, it requires the approval of an Institutional Review Board (Kalat, 2014).
As Kalat (2014) points out, psychological research is typically related to minimum risks, but it still needs to take into account certain concerns (p. 46). Possible risks need to be predicted, the confidentiality must be ensured, and all the information about the study must be provided to the participants as the informed consent document. The procedure of obtaining consent from children or mentally impaired people involves both the permission of a guardian and the assent of the participant (whenever possible). Both documents need to be written in the language that a person can understand (Myers, 2011, p. 38-39). To sum up, everything must be done to make sure that participants learn and realize what is going to happen during the study, what their rights are, and how they are going to be protected. If the research is not a high-risk one, a properly written informed consent is the key to avoiding ethical controversy. For more difficult and controversial issues, the intervention of a Board and the case-specific guidelines should be used.
It is noteworthy that the development of ethical research guidelines was a gradual one and the research of the past used to be much less thought-out. An example is the notorious Monster Study, a speech pathology research, in which the subjects (orphan children) were exposed to very different treatment: the members of one group received positive comments on their talks and were praised for achievements, and those in the other one were blamed and belittled for any defect or mistake (LeVay, 2014). The study took place in 1939, and it has been compared to the Wolrd War II experiments that were carried out in concentration camps, which were technically crimes committed in the name of science.
It is not difficult to understand that experiments like the Monster Study should have never been carried out, but other ethical considerations can be more subtle. For example, nowadays it is considered necessary to explain the purpose of the research to the participants (Myers & Hansen, 2011, p. 45). However, deception can provide a researcher with additional opportunities. Such was the case of Stanley Milgram’s study on obedience. It involved telling the participants that the experiment was on learning and instructing one of them to “punish” another for certain mistakes with the help of electric shock. The voltage was supposed to increase to the point where it was bound to cause harm. In reality, the participants that were to be “punished” were actors that imitated being in pain (Sampson, 2015). The deception was a necessary part of the study, and, according to Kalat (2014), such situations are not uncommon for psychological research. Like any other controversial studies, they need to be evaluated, for example, by an Institutional Review Board and correspond to relevant guidelines.
I have never dealt with a controversial study, but I think that the scientific community is right to attempt to regulate this aspect of research. Participants should be treated conscientiously because there is hardly an amount of scientific knowledge that is worth willingly endangering or harming people. I think that the historical development of ethical guidelines in research mirrors our understanding of the value of an individual being. After all, science is being advanced for the sake of people, which makes the value of unethical, dangerous research questionable. If I ever choose to conduct a study that involves human participants, I will work to consider all the possible drawbacks.
References
Kalat, J. W. (2014). Introduction to psychology (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
LeVay, S. (2014). When science goes wrong. New York: Plume.
Myers, A., & Hansen, C. (2011). Experimental psychology (7th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA, USA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Sampson, E. E. (2015). Dialogic partners and the shaping of social reality: Implications for good and evil in Milgram’s studies of obedience. Pastoral Psychology, 64(1), 51-61. Web.