Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Perspective

Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms

View ORCID ProfileRose McDermott and View ORCID ProfilePeter K. Hatemi
  1. aPolitical Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912;
  2. bPolitical Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;
  3. cMicrobiology and Biochemistry, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS December 1, 2020 117 (48) 30014-30021; first published November 23, 2020; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012021117
Rose McDermott
aPolitical Science, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rose McDermott
Peter K. Hatemi
bPolitical Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;
cMicrobiology and Biochemistry, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Peter K. Hatemi
  • For correspondence: Phatemi@gmail.com
  1. Edited by Margaret Levi, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved October 1, 2020 (received for review June 10, 2020)

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In 1966, Henry Beecher published his foundational paper “Ethics and Clinical Research,” bringing to light unethical experiments that were routinely being conducted by leading universities and government agencies. A common theme was the lack of voluntary consent. Research regulations surrounding laboratory experiments flourished after his work. More than half a century later, we seek to follow in his footsteps and identify a new domain of risk to the public: certain types of field experiments. The nature of experimental research has changed greatly since the Belmont Report. Due in part to technological advances including social media, experimenters now target and affect whole societies, releasing interventions into a living public, often without sufficient review or controls. A large number of social science field experiments do not reflect compliance with current ethical and legal requirements that govern research with human participants. Real-world interventions are being conducted without consent or notice to the public they affect. Follow-ups and debriefing are routinely not being undertaken with the populations that experimenters injure. Importantly, even when ethical research guidelines are followed, researchers are following principles developed for experiments in controlled settings, with little assessment or protection for the wider societies within which individuals are embedded. We strive to improve the ethics of future work by advocating the creation of new norms, illustrating classes of field experiments where scholars do not appear to have recognized the ways such research circumvents ethical standards by putting people, including those outside the manipulated group, into harm’s way.

  • ethics
  • field experiments
  • research

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: Phatemi{at}gmail.com.
  • Author contributions: R.M. and P.K.H. designed research, performed research, and wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no competing interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

Data Availability.

There are no data underlying this work.

Published under the PNAS license.

View Full Text

References

  1. ↵
    1. D. L. Teele
    , Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences (Yale University Press, 2014).
  2. ↵
    1. D. Baldassarri,
    2. M. Abascal
    , Field experiments across the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43, 41–73 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. R. Meyer
    , Everything we know about Facebook’s secret mood manipulation experiment. The Atlantic, 28 June 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/. Accessed 9 November 2020.
  4. ↵
    1. B. Lerner
    , Three identical strangers: The high cost of experimentation without ethics. Washington Post, 27 January 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/27/three-identical-strangers-high-cost-experimentation-without-ethics/. Accessed 9 November 2020.
  5. ↵
    1. M. Wood
    , OKCupid plays with love in user experiments. NY Times, 28 July 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/technology/okcupid-publishes-findings-of-user-experiments.html. Accessed 9 November 2020.
  6. ↵
    1. J. Jouhki,
    2. E. Lauk,
    3. M. Penttinen,
    4. N. Sormanen,
    5. T. Uskali
    , Facebook’s emotional contagion experiment as a challenge to research ethics. Media Commun. 4, 75–85 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. G. H. McClendon
    , Ethics of using public officials as field experiment subjects. Newslett. APSA Exp. Sect. 3, 13–20 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. K. Peyton
    , Ethics and politics in field experiments. Newslett. APSA Exp. Sect. 3, 13–20 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Nuremberg Military Tribunals
    , "Permissible medical experiments" in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals CCLN, October 1946-1949 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1949), pp. 181–184.
  10. ↵
    1. World Medical Association
    , “Recommendations guiding medical doctors in biomedical research involving human subjects: Revised 52nd WMA, 2000” (WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1964).
  11. ↵
    1. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
    , “The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research” (Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bethesda, MD, 1978).
  12. ↵
    1. C. A. Bail et al
    ., Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 9216–9221 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. D. Broockman,
    2. J. Kalla
    , Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352, 220–224 (2016).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. J. Barceló
    , Mobilizing collective memory: A large-scale field experiment on the effects of priming collective threat on voting behavior, SPSA 2019 Preliminary Program, version 3.0 (2018).
  15. ↵
    1. D. W. Nickerson,
    2. I. K. White
    , The Effect of Priming Racial In-Group Norms of Participation and Racial Group Conflict on Black Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment (Ohio State University, 2013).
  16. ↵
    1. G. Nair,
    2. N. Sambanis
    , Violence exposure and ethnic identification: Evidence from Kashmir. Int. Organ. 73, 329–363 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. L. Bursztyn,
    2. D. Cantoni,
    3. D. Y. Yang,
    4. N. Yuchtman,
    5. Y. J. Zhang
    , Persistent political engagement: Social interactions and the dynamics of protest movements. https://home.uchicago.edu/bursztyn/Persistent_Political_Engagement_July2019.pdf. Accessed 9 November 2020.
  18. ↵
    1. D. Willis
    , Professors’ research project stirs political outrage in Montana. NY Times, 28 October 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/upshot/professors-research-project-stirs-political-outrage-in-montana.html. Accessed 9 November 2020.
  19. ↵
    1. J. Kleinsman,
    2. S. Buckley
    , Facebook study: A little bit unethical but worth it? J. Bioeth. Inq. 12, 179–182 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. M. R. Michelson
    , The risk of over-reliance on the institutional review board: An approved subject is not always an ethical project. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 55, 299–303 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. A. Chong,
    2. O. A. L. De La,
    3. D. Karlan,
    4. L. Wantchekon
    , Does corruption information inspire the fight or quash the hope? A field experiment in Mexico on voter turnout, choice, and party identification. J. Polit. 77, 55–71 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. A. S. Gerber,
    2. D. P. Green
    , Do phone calls increase voter turnout?: A field experiment. Public Opin. Q. 65, 75–85 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. A. S. Gerber,
    2. D. P. Green
    , The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 94, 653–663 (2000).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. D. P. Green,
    2. A. S. Gerber,
    3. D. W. Nickerson
    , Getting out the vote in local elections: Results from six door-to-door canvassing experiments. J. Polit. 65, 1083–1096 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. C. Panagopoulos
    , Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: Field experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing voting behavior. Polit. Behav. 32, 369–386 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. R. D. Enos,
    2. A. Fowler,
    3. L. Vavreck
    , Increasing inequality: The effect of GOTV mobilization on the composition of the electorate. J. Polit. 76, 273–288 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. L. D. Walker
    , National science foundation, institutional review boards, and political and social science. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 49, 309–312 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. K. Dams-O’Connor,
    2. J. M. Ketchum,
    3. J. P. Cuthbert
    1. S. Holm,
    2. S. Madsen
    , “Informed consent in medical research—a procedure stretched beyond breaking point?” in The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Legal Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine, K. Dams-O’Connor, J. M. Ketchum, J. P. Cuthbert, Eds. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2009), pp. 11–24.
  29. ↵
    1. American Psychological Association
    , Ethical Principles in the Conduct of Research with Human Participants (American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1973).
  30. ↵
    1. S. Desposato
    , Subjects and scholars’ views on the ethics of political science field experiments. Perspect. Polit. 16, 739–750 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. A. S. Gerber,
    2. D. P. Green,
    3. C. W. Larimer
    , Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102, 33–48 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. A. S. Gerber,
    2. G. A. Huber,
    3. A. H. Fang,
    4. A. Gooch
    , The generalizability of social pressure effects on turnout across high-salience electoral contexts: Field experimental evidence from 1.96 million citizens in 17 states. Am. Polit. Res. 45, 533–559 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. A. S. Gerber,
    2. D. P. Green,
    3. C. W. Larimer
    , An experiment testing the relative effectiveness of encouraging voter participation by inducing feelings of pride or shame. Polit. Behav. 32, 409–422 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. NIMH
    , Anxiety Disorder Among Adults (National Institutes of Mental Health, 2016).
  35. ↵
    1. R. W. Booth,
    2. B. Mackintosh,
    3. D. Sharma
    , Working memory regulates trait anxiety-related threat processing biases. Emotion 17, 616–627 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. M. D. Seery,
    2. E. A. Holman,
    3. R. C. Silver
    , Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99, 1025–1041 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. M. L. Hatzenbuehler,
    2. J. C. Phelan,
    3. B. G. Link
    , Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Am. J. Public Health 103, 813–821 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. R. M. Bond et al
    ., A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295–298 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. A. D. Kramer,
    2. J. E. Guillory,
    3. J. T. Hancock
    , Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8788–8790 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. D. Broockman
    , Panel Discussant on Ethics, Institutional Review Boards and Conflicts of Interests in Field Experiments (The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 2018).
  41. ↵
    1. R. B. Morton,
    2. K. C. Williams
    , Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010).
  42. ↵
    1. National Research Council, Population Co
    , Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects in the Behavioral and Social Sciences (National Academies Press, 2014).
  43. ↵
    1. C. Buckley
    , To test housing program, some are denied aid. NY Times, 8 December 2010. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html. Accessed 9 November 2020.
  44. ↵
    1. S. R. Schuler,
    2. S. M. Hashemi,
    3. S. H. Badal
    , Men’s violence against women in rural Bangladesh: Undermined or exacerbated by microcredit programmes? Dev. Pract. 8, 148–157 (1998).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. N. S. Murshid,
    2. F. M. Critelli
    , Empowerment and intimate partner violence in Pakistan: Results from a nationally representative survey. J. Interpers. Violence 35, 854–875 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. J. D. Foltz,
    2. K. A. Opoku-Agyemang
    , Do higher salaries lower petty corruption? A policy experiment on West Africa’s highways. https://cega.berkeley.edu/assets/miscellaneous_files/118_-_Opoku-Agyemang_Ghana_Police_Corruption_paper_revised_v3.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2010.
  47. ↵
    1. G. D. Ruxton,
    2. T. Mulder
    , Unethical work must be filtered out or flagged. Nature 572, 171–172 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. H. Algahtani,
    2. M. Bajunaid,
    3. B. Shirah
    , Unethical human research in the field of neuroscience: A historical review. Neurol. Sci. 39, 829–834 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. D. P. Green
    , Panel discussant on ethics, institutional review boards and conflicts of interests in field experiments (The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, CA, 2018).

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Log in through your institution

You may be able to gain access using your login credentials for your institution. Contact your library if you do not have a username and password.
If your organization uses OpenAthens, you can log in using your OpenAthens username and password. To check if your institution is supported, please see this list. Contact your library for more details.

Purchase access

You may purchase access to this article. This will require you to create an account if you don't already have one.

Subscribers, for more details, please visit our Subscriptions FAQ.

Please click here to log into the PNAS submission website.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms
Rose McDermott, Peter K. Hatemi
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2020, 117 (48) 30014-30021; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2012021117

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms
Rose McDermott, Peter K. Hatemi
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2020, 117 (48) 30014-30021; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2012021117
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Political Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 117 (48)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • New Risks from Large-Scale Social Science Research
    • New Requirements and a New Standard: Respect for Societies
    • Conclusion
    • Data Availability.
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Model of the Amazon forest
News Feature: A sea in the Amazon
Did the Caribbean sweep into the western Amazon millions of years ago, shaping the region’s rich biodiversity?
Image credit: Tacio Cordeiro Bicudo (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), Victor Sacek (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), and Lucy Reading-Ikkanda (artist).
Syrian archaeological site
Journal Club: In Mesopotamia, early cities may have faltered before climate-driven collapse
Settlements 4,200 years ago may have suffered from overpopulation before drought and lower temperatures ultimately made them unsustainable.
Image credit: Andrea Ricci.
Click beetle on a leaf
How click beetles jump
Marianne Alleyna, Aimy Wissa, and Ophelia Bolmin explain how the click beetle amplifies power to pull off its signature jump.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Birds nestling on tree branches
Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490