It's an insightful review into some of the issues and regulations around this. I'm not American, so our local rules are different, and I resigned from my insti

It's an insightful review into some of the issues and regulations around this. I'm not American, so our local rules are different, and I resigned from my institution's IRB several years ago, and these issues have become more fraught in this period. However, the way I was trained to look at these issues were around the concepts of harm, both actual and potential. In this particular case, as Dittrich notes, the questions are around the ethics of using deception in research. Deception does have a role in legitimate research. Arguably, double-blind experiments, the sine qua non of medical research have a fundamental component of deception. They also represent the most common way the ethical dilemma is resolved: subjects are told that they may be deceived, and they have an opportunity to give informed consent. That could have been done in this case: have project leads inform people working on the project that, in the interest of evaluating the patching process, patches that are incorrect or which introduce vulnerabilities may be submitted by researchers. That, of course, would require some senior members of the organization be aware the study was going on. That last is the way penetration testing and red team investigations of security resolve the ethical question---and distinguish themselves from mere vandals and criminals. Other ways to resolve it include collecting data without deception: instead of introducing flawed or malicious patches themselves, researchers identify such patches that have historically been submitted and then review the processes that led to their acceptance or rejection. This is more difficult, but might arguably produce better results. In the case that there are few or no such cases on record, then I would question the value of doing the study at all: deceiving people to study a phenomena that doesn't appear to occur at an appreciable rate is difficult to justify. There's a simple heuristic: if you're studying a group of human beings that you are not a member of, and for which no members are consciously participating, you must be extremely careful. The general rule in anthropological and sociological research is that you do not lie to your subjects. There are cases where the value of the research is sufficient, and for which no other options are available, to break that rule. But they are rare and the utility must be clearly shown and carefully reviewed by a qualified third party. This experiment doesn't come close. There will certainly be those those willing to argue that this isn't human experimentation and thus does not require ethical review. If your experiment depends on misleading human beings---directly or by omission---then it requires an ethical review. It is unethical to waste people's time to no purpose. In the case of an open source project where volunteers are donating their time, it is particularly egregious: they were squandering volunteers' time. In effect they were destroying part of the contribution people made to a project they care about. That requires a very clear justification, which this particular project absolutely does not provide. I recall a conversation with other IRB members shortly after the Sokal Hoax became known. Our general consensus was that it was hilarious but absolutely unethical if considered as an experiment.