There is a constant debate as to whether ethics is a necessary precaution or just a hindrance. The British Psychology Society (BPS, 1978) established five main ethical guidelines to try ensure that researchers did not harm their participants.
The main ethical guidelines were:
Deception : Deception is when participants are misled on purpose and researchers withhold information about the aim of the investigation from the participants.
Confidentiality: Participants have the right to have their personal information hidden, and when published is should by anonymous, for example a number or initials.
Informed Consent: They must be fully informed of the purpose of the research and their rights.
Right to withdraw: Should be informed of their right to leave the study at any point and have their data removed.
Debriefing: After the study they should be fully explained of the investigation and given an opportunity for their data to with withdrawn, and asked if they have any further questions.
Protection from Harm : The participant should leave the study in the same mental and physical state that they entered it.
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/DeafStudiesTeaching/dissert/BPS%20Ethical%20Guidelines.htm
However, if these ethical guidelines existed in the 1960’s a lot of very influential research would never have been conducted, and therefore existing important theories would probably not have been established and supported with research – such as Milgrams (Milgram et al,1963) extremely influential study on obedience. Milgrams study could now never be replicated as it is classed as so unethical because not only did he deceive his participants by lying about the true aim of the study, but some believe he also blurred the lines between whether the participants had the right to withdraw, as every time the participants questioned whether they should continue, the experimenter was cued to encourage the participant to continue.
Similarly Zimbardo would have not got ethical approval for his Stanford Prison Experiment, researching into deinvidudation. Zimbardo (1971) would have not have complied with the ethical guidelines as he did not protect his participants from harm.
For some researchers the ethical guidelines are a hindrance because they stop them conducting research that they would want to, or make them have to adapt their research so that it is ethical, but in doing this affecting the validity of the study. For example not being able to deceive a participant of the aim of the study, so they may guess the aim, and affect the validity of the results by, for example, behaving in a way they think the experimenter wants them to.
Ethical guidelines may be a hindrance as they delay research from being started, and can prevent what would be useful research being undergone, however they are needed as it stops participants from being exploited.
psud63 
Dec 09, 2011 @ 19:56:40
Great point on the fact that if ethical guidelines existed in the 1960s, those crazy studies wouldnt have been conducted. We did get some valuable information from the examples you gave but what about the studies that we didnt gain much from and they breached quite serious guidelines, for example the monster study which majorly breached the ethic to protect participants from harm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monster_Study
Dec 09, 2011 @ 22:05:39
Great blog and good examples 🙂 however with your milgram example… Milgrams study in fact was ethical! He asked a panel of 110 experts including 40 psychiatrists to judge how ethical his experiment was, they all said that it was ethical but just a waste of time. And although he did deceive people 85% of them when asked afterwards were impressed by the deception and were thankful that they had taken part in the experiment therefore ethics aren’t that essential and are more a hindrance. He was also the founder of proper debriefing as he thoroughly debriefed the participants including showing them the learner to demonstrate that they had experienced no harm. A follow up debrief was also done years after to ensure no long term harm had occurred… Milgram wasn’t such a bad guy after all 🙂
Dec 09, 2011 @ 23:12:03
I think that in terms of ‘protection from harm’, the guideline is essential, as no experiment should mentally or physically scar the participant involved. Deception though is definitely a tricky guideline to follow. The majority of experiments involve deception in some way, because if you were to tell the participants exactly what you were investigating then a true measurement would never be taken, and the experiment would essentially be pointless. So in this respect, I don’t think deception should be one of the guidelines as it’s an essential part of scientific research.