As information technology advances, social science research tools have become richer and more sophisticated. However, research ethics seem to lag behind the times. Large-scale social interventions conducted in the name of social science research can impact both individuals and groups in terms of physical and mental health, interpersonal relationships, financial situations, among other aspects. They may even harm social justice. Some studies have already been controversial.

The Declaration of Helsinki (1979) and The Belmont Report (1964) laid the foundation for modern medical ethics and have widely influenced other fields of scientific research. Medical institutions, universities, and research institutions in developed countries now generally have Institutional Review Boards in place to investigate whether institutional research activities comply with international ethical norms and national laws and regulations.

According to the study “Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms” authored by Rose McDermott, a professor of international relations at Brown University, and Peter K. Hatemi, a professor of political science at Pennsylvania State University, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2020, many social science field experiments target large populations and even affect people who are not research subjects without following ethical principles of respect, justice, and beneficence. Moreover, existing research ethics standards were primarily designed to guide laboratory research and rarely consider broader social consequences.

McDermott and Hatemi analyzed field experiments which used social pressure manipulation and found that no researchers reported obtaining informed consent prior to the manipulation, or debriefed the unknowing participants. By not doing so, these experiments violate two basic principles applying to all experiments, laboratory or field: inform participants of potential risks of the study; acquire permission before conducting research on anyone. Debriefing also constitutes an integral component of respect for persons. It serves two critical functions: to remediate negative consequences suffered by participants; to revert participants to their prior state, including how they felt about themselves and others before the study began.

Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner, a professor of social and medical anthropology at the University of Sussex, said that all research institutions in the UK have ethical guidelines, and the particular guidelines social scientists need to follow depend greatly on where the researchers are employed.

“While ethical issues in social science field experiments should be discussed, it’s hard to create ‘one-size-fits-all’ rules, because very different ethical guidelines are needed for research in different disciplines and of different types,” Sleeboom-Faulkner said. For instance, research ethics needed for history or anthropology differ greatly from those for psychology, as psychological studies tend to be highly procedural.

All social scientists in the EU are required by law to follow the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) set in place in 2018, which requires, among other things, active consent from participants, noted Jaap Bos, an associate professor of social and behavioral sciences at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

“The debate about ethical risk in social science field experiments is very beneficial, but should not become too technical and descriptive,” Bos said. There are more fundamental questions to be discussed, such as participants’ autonomy, and their role in research.

Furthermore, the work of drawing up research ethics policies, overseeing policy implementation, and assessing results should not be undertaken by ethics committees alone.

“It’s important to include the general public,” Bos concluded.