Warning, long rant coming. Im not sure which I find the most outrageous: (a) that Facebook has been conducting behavioral experiments on human subjects without following common established ethical procedure (as set out in US Federal Law and by international human rights standards, such as the Declaration of Helsinki), or (b) that this kind of non-compliant research was published by the National Academy of Sciences. Does Facebook have an Institutional Review Board? Should those of us who do follow proper ethical procedure in our own human-subject research boycott organizations like the National Academy of Sciences who accept non-compliant research for publication? For those who arent aware, researchers working with human subjects normally have to get approval from their local IRB before conducting experiments, even for research that clearly does no harm to the subjects. This is nearly always a slow, annoying process. And yet, we go through it anyway, because it is unethical to do otherwise. Journals with high standards and integrity will not accept research for publication that has not gone through proper IRB clearance. By following proper IRB procedure, we set up a scenario in which we are most likely to get truly informed consent for every experiment from every participant. Agreeing to Facebooks blanket Terms of Service is not at all the same thing as giving individual informed consent for a specific experiment, for a variety of reasons. In a real, ethical experiment, the subjects are told before a specific experiment when it will start and when it will end. They are told what kind of experiment will be conducted. They are given a debriefing at the end, especially if the experiment involved deception or hidden purposes of any kind. They are told what the funding sources for the experiment are and what any potential conflicts of interest the researchers might have. They are told what possible risks and discomforts they may be exposed to during the experiment and what effects they may feel afterward. They are told what the benefits of the experiment are and how their data will be used. And most importantly, they are explicitly given the right to refuse to participate, at any point, before or during the experiment, but especially after being fully debriefed. Ethical experimentation always gives the subject the opportunity to remove their data from consideration at any point, especially once the full nature of the experiment has been revealed. ALWAYS. This is not just for the protection of the subjects, but also for the protection of our future subjects trust in the scientific community. Unethical experiments (no matter how minor the potential harm may be) sow mistrust among the general population for the scientific process itself. This is very very bad. We already have a problem with anti-science attitudes in this country. We really didnt need more fuel on that fire. And Im just flabbergasted that the National Academy of Sciences published such blatantly unethical research. We cannot ignore ethical standards on a case by case basis. We have standards, and we follow them. Period. Doing otherwise undermines the reputation of the scientific process and our ability to conduct future research.
Posted on: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 06:59:38 +0000