4 ms·

On a side note: Should he have been able to see whose results he was looking at? It's surely unethical in my book. Even when, or perhaps even more when, working

by wjnc 7y ago

On a side note: Should he have been able to see whose results he was looking at? It's surely unethical in my book. Even when, or perhaps even more when, working with data from relatives the burden of ethical behavior lies with the researcher. De-anonymising shouldn't be the researchers option without safeguards imho.

ordu 7y ago
Yes, researcher needs to be trained on ethics specifically. It is a part of psychological education, it is a part of APA's mission[1]. Psychology takes it seriously after Little Albert Experiment[2], Ash Conformity Experiment[3], Zimbardo's Standford Prison Experiment[4], Milgram Experiment[5] and a lot of others. Now it couldn't be done, a researcher needs to approve his experimental plan with APA Ethics Committee. It means, that any competent researcher in a psychology would know ethical risks (due to education), and if he is testing his research plan on his family, he must be ready to find something unexpected, and he must inform participants on the risks. [1] https://www.apa.org/ethics/ https://www.apa.org/ethics/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment [3] https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment [5] https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
- turk73 7y ago
  We are missing the boat with ethics everywhere--I work with people every day that aren't even aware of the unethical actions they are taking in the healthcare realm. It's very easy to avoid ethical behavior if you have never received any training in ethical practices. Breaking the double-blind restrictions of his study was an ethical breach. He was affecting the outcome by damaging a key instrument in the study (himself). Breaking the rules and being a maverick is sometimes useful, even ethical behavior, but in scientific research, if you go through all the effort to design a study, you should uphold the plan. As far as all this psychopaths can be detected with a brain scan bs, well, it is just that--bs. I don't think there is an easy test to determine who is going to lead a life of crime and who isn't. I do think a lot of unsavory people rise to leadership roles. That is for certain. It would be nice if we could do something to control those types of people before they take such a huge toll on the rest of us. What I found most annoying was his propensity for drawing easy conclusions about how his loving upbringing somehow prevented him from being another Lizzie Borden. Again, does this guy have any scientific training? There are tens of thousands of lurking variables unacknowledged there!
tasuki 7y ago
> It's surely unethical in my book. He's a psychopath.
lenticular 7y ago
> On a side note: Should he have been able to see whose results he was looking at? It's surely unethical in my book. They were specifically ones from his own family, so I imagine he had consent.

by wjnc 7y ago

ordu 7y ago

Yes, researcher needs to be trained on ethics specifically. It is a part of psychological education, it is a part of APA's mission[1]. Psychology takes it seriously after Little Albert Experiment[2], Ash Conformity Experiment[3], Zimbardo's Standford Prison Experiment[4], Milgram Experiment[5] and a lot of others. Now it couldn't be done, a researcher needs to approve his experimental plan with APA Ethics Committee. It means, that any competent researcher in a psychology would know ethical risks (due to education), and if he is testing his research plan on his family, he must be ready to find something unexpected, and he must inform participants on the risks. [1] https://www.apa.org/ethics/ https://www.apa.org/ethics/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment [3] https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment [5] https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

turk73 7y ago
We are missing the boat with ethics everywhere--I work with people every day that aren't even aware of the unethical actions they are taking in the healthcare realm. It's very easy to avoid ethical behavior if you have never received any training in ethical practices. Breaking the double-blind restrictions of his study was an ethical breach. He was affecting the outcome by damaging a key instrument in the study (himself). Breaking the rules and being a maverick is sometimes useful, even ethical behavior, but in scientific research, if you go through all the effort to design a study, you should uphold the plan. As far as all this psychopaths can be detected with a brain scan bs, well, it is just that--bs. I don't think there is an easy test to determine who is going to lead a life of crime and who isn't. I do think a lot of unsavory people rise to leadership roles. That is for certain. It would be nice if we could do something to control those types of people before they take such a huge toll on the rest of us. What I found most annoying was his propensity for drawing easy conclusions about how his loving upbringing somehow prevented him from being another Lizzie Borden. Again, does this guy have any scientific training? There are tens of thousands of lurking variables unacknowledged there!

tasuki 7y ago

> It's surely unethical in my book. He's a psychopath.

lenticular 7y ago

> On a side note: Should he have been able to see whose results he was looking at? It's surely unethical in my book. They were specifically ones from his own family, so I imagine he had consent.