In psychology we refer to ethical guidelines which are set down for us by the BPS (British Psychological Society). As psychologists we have a moral duty to protect our participants from harm. It is for this reason we follow the ethical guidelines. The question is, do ethics go too far sometimes?
The main focus of debates about ethics often includes deception, potential harm, informed consent and confidentiality.
It is stated by the BPS that if a proposed piece of research has ‘scientific, educational or applied value’ then deception may be considered. Otherwise we are not supposed to intentionally deceive participants. However, by telling a participant everything there is to know about a study means that they are much more likely not to give genuine results and show demand characteristics so which side are we to take?
Milgram’s study was unethical due to deception. He told his participants that the study was to investigate the effects of punishment on learning. This wasn’t the case, so he intentionally deceived his participants.
If you would like to read further on Milgram’s study I have provided a link.
http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm
Informed consent must outline the study to the participant, and gain their consent. But is it always possible to gain informed consent? It is not, but this is acceptable if the study requires studying participants in an everyday situation where they would expect to be viewed i.e in a shopping centre. Participants must receive an outline of the study, what procedure is going to be used, possible risks, the aim of the study and the length of the study. However with informed consent, demand characteristics could again play a part in not providing a reliable set of data.
Confidentiality is keeping the participants and the data they provide confidential unless full consent is gained from the participant to use their results again. However, in the case of a brain scan being obtained for a study and an abnormality being found nothing can be done without causing some harm to the participant. So do we keep the information secret or tell the participant when we are not qualified to diagnose, and there potentially be nothing wrong?
Potential harm is the psychological harm we could cause by conducting a study. There is always a degree of harm that could be caused. The ethical guidelines are there to determine which can or cannot go ahead. For example, the potential harm in Zimbardo’s prison experiment was huge, but it was conducted as ethical guidelines were not there to say otherwise. The results from this experiment were huge, so are ethics too restricting in some cases?
Again the link below details The Stamford Prison Experiment, should you want to read up on it. http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm
So, do ethics hinder psychological discoveries in any way? I personally believe that ethics are important, and that we, as psychologists, need guidelines as to what can and what cannot be done. Studies which were once approved would now never happen, but with ethical guidelines in place, big discoveries are still being made. However, some guidelines do hinder a study, or affect a studies result in some way. But without ethics the results from a psychological study would not be reliable, or valid and for psychology to be considered a science the use of ethics is vital.