Former cognitive neuroscientist here. This article is supposed to be talking about psychological research, but it starts with an anecdote about a bank teller's

Former cognitive neuroscientist here. This article is supposed to be talking about psychological research, but it starts with an anecdote about a bank teller's UFO prank? Psych research has had a checkered history, for sure, but this straw man doesn't help the author's case. How does this reflect on academic research standards? For those who don't know, modern research standards (i.e., the last 40 years) require all research to be approved by an Institutional Review Board, which is mostly staffed by non-psychologists. They have to justify the possible knowledge gained, the methodology used, and if there is any deception involved, all participants get a mandatory debriefing, where the purpose was explained to them. The research shows that debriefings are very effective, and the vast majority of participants do not leave the lab feeling violated; most are happy to contribute to scientific knowledge (or just collect their cash/course credit). I have personally witnessed labs temporarily shut down for violating IRB rules. And without IRB approval, no legitimate journal will publish your research. While Milgram and Asch's experiments were deceptive, I think their results reveal harsh, necessary truths about ourselves. Zimbardo is a different case, in that the Prison experiment was methodologically unsound. It's highly unlikely he'd get IRB approval today. CIA collaboration (like Gottlieb's dosing unsuspecting civilians with LSD) existed entirely outside academic influence, and while shameful, don't reflect academic standards. (Gottlieb wasn't even a psychologist, he was a chemist.) As for the very basic assumption under question, the difficulty is that many people will not act normally when they know what the researcher is looking for. Most people are decent, and will want to help the researcher. Some will react in the opposite way and seek to mess with the research. The most ethical way to compensate for temporary deception is a complete "fessing up" right after, and most participants agree.