Oh, I don't deny the value of the information that was gained from the study. I think it's very good that we know this. (I seem to recall Marna mentioning that knowledge of this experiment was one of the strongest defences against succumbing to this kind of pressure.)
But the study itself caused significant psychological damage to the unwitting participants, even after they were debriefed and reassured that no-one had actually been harmed. No review board would approve such an experiment under present ethics guidelines. (In fact, as I understand it, today's guidelines were largely devised in response to this experiment.)
Hence the quandary: the information is valuable, and - now that we know it - it should be widely disseminated. But I can't see any way that that information could have been obtained ethically. Do you?
To put it another way: after the fact, the information is important. But before the fact, would the possibility of obtaining such important information justify carrying out such an experiment?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-09 09:34 pm (UTC)But the study itself caused significant psychological damage to the unwitting participants, even after they were debriefed and reassured that no-one had actually been harmed. No review board would approve such an experiment under present ethics guidelines. (In fact, as I understand it, today's guidelines were largely devised in response to this experiment.)
Hence the quandary: the information is valuable, and - now that we know it - it should be widely disseminated. But I can't see any way that that information could have been obtained ethically. Do you?
To put it another way: after the fact, the information is important. But before the fact, would the possibility of obtaining such important information justify carrying out such an experiment?