Experimentation is a key part of scientific process. But in the psychological and sociological sciences, where human beings are often the "guinea pigs", it is important to always ensure that the steps towards scientific discovery are ethical. But what does this mean?
The three things that all scientists should keep in mind are: 1) obtain the informed consent of the participants, 2) protect them from harm and discomfort, and 3) treat information about individual participation confidentially. But how easy is it to follow these three guidelines? Because human behavior and reactions are difficult to predict due to our wide variations, it is not always easy to predict what may happen during a sociological experimentation. We saw this in the 1970s Stanford Prison Experiment.
The participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment certainly were harmed, not only psychologically but also in other negative aspects. That, I do not believe is the question. The question is, was the experiment unethical? In the video clip, it is said the results surprised everyone, including Dr. Zimbardo. This tells me that prior to the actual experiment, not all possible outcomes were or could have been predicted, and we can assume that it was not developed with the intent to put the participants into harms way, in any way. Furthermore, the experiment was originally intended to last two weeks, but was terminated after just six days, once the participant's well-being had been jeopardized.
In conclusion, the experiment, since it was presumably the first of it's kind, was not an unethical experiement for it's time. The outcomes were not predicted and surprised everyone, but once it was established that the wellbeing of the participants were being jeopardized the experiement was ended, keeping the participant's best interest in mind. However, to duplicate this experiment, as is often done in science in hopes to duplicate results, would possibly be unethical, since it is evident now that participants could possibly be harmed.
Its hard to follow you because the reason they did the experiment was to find out the effects. They would have never done the experiment had they know all the possible outcomes. The of course set up rules to be followed for the experiment but they were not followed. In that sense I think the experiment was a small failure. But the real question was, was it ethical. To reconstruct such an environment and put them in it I believe it was because it was the actual situation. They would have not gotten the same results if they followed the rules to the letter which is sad to say because I wish harm on no one but they were reconstructing a tense, violent, hard, freedom stripping enviornment. You can't put rules on reality for the true results.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jay, you can't put rules on reality and the human brain is a weapon that not even ourselves can control in some circumstances. Life changes every day and even if you do the same experiment with the same students under the same circumstances the results might be different now. Now is this ethical? As you said human beings are use as guinea pigs for some experiments. Now why don't we have the same discussion about a lab experiment were they use guinea pigs or lab rats, is that ethical? Would it be consider unethical because we are using human beings for the experiments? Wouldn't it be unethical if we use animals as well? They live, eat, sleep the same way as we do, why would be ethical if we experiment in animals and not in human beings? Why do you think that if the experiment gets done again would be unethical then and not unethical before? Should we start thinking the same when experiments get repeated hundreds of times in animals?
ReplyDeleteBut that's exactly my point. The results of the experiment were not predicted, so therefore they did not conduct the experiment with prior knowledge of knowing that the harmful affects could occur.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, part of the scientific method is to come up with a hypothesis, or a statement to prove or disprove. I'm not sure what this hypothesis was, but I'm sure it wasn't one to "prove" that the participants would fall into character as they did.
I'm only stating that there are certain guidelines for ethical experimentation in the behaviorial sciences, and from what I can tell, those guidelines were followed. I also think, that this certain aspect of behavior should be studied in other ways, like through historical references like the Holocaust or Guantonamo Bay, rather than experiments.
The experiment was conducted before the social science community had the restrictions of IRBs. So Zimbardo and Milgram did not have the same ethical board and rules to follow. There was essentially little protection for individuals in the studies. IRBs would probably deny these studies if they were completed using the same methods today as they did then.
ReplyDeleteThe Institutional Review Boards now must know what potential harm could be caused when using human subjects. Here is a link to Colorado College. Then when there, find the link for a sample IRB proposal:
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dean/oir/irb/EXAMPLEOFANEXCELLENTIRBPROPOSAL.htm
Pay attention to sections C and D, especially.