There was also the pathbreaking research (by Roger Jowell, I think) that
unambiguously proved  racial discrimination in employment practice - would
we want to ban that too? (It involved 'spoof' job-applications, I recall.)

(As with all ethical rules, maybe sometimes we should be brave enough to
break them: is there an allowable 'public good' argument? Just as in some
case we may feel it legitimate to break the law, may it be ethical to break
an ethical guideline?)

DR CRIPPEN



On 19 April 2010 09:28, Robert Newcombe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Two points here. First, I'd 100% endorse what Doug has said here - clarity
> is essential and often the argument that a term is commonly understood in a
> particular sense isn't really adequate.
>
> Also, re Ken's point - in many research domains this is regarded as
> unacceptable - now. Back in the 1970s a clipboard-wielding person approached
> people in a busy shopping street, and asked their opinion on some current
> political issues. But this wasn't the real purpose of the study. All
> interactions were observed discreetly through binoculars from an overlooking
> window, to determine what proportion of people approached actually complied.
> On some occasions the interviewer appeared as her normal self, on other
> occasions the occlusion of her front teeth was deliberately altered in some
> way (I've no idea how you do this in vivo). The dentists who did this study
> would obviously argue that this was the only way to determine to what degree
> orthodontic factors would affect human interaction. This 'fly-on-the-wall'
> research mode is clearly scientifically advantageous. But current research
> governance procedures - in the healthcare domain at least - would make it
> quite unacceptable.
>
>
> Robert G. Newcombe PhD CStat FFPH
> Professor of Medical Statistics
> Department of Primary Care and Public Health
> Clinical Epidemiology Interdisciplinary Research Group
> Cardiff University
> 4th floor, Neuadd Meirionnydd
> Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4YS
>
> Tel: (+44) 29 2068 7260
> Fax: (+44) 29 2068 7236
>
> Home page http://tinyurl.com/7mr754
> For location see
> http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/locations/resources/Faxable%20Map-07.pdf
>
>
> >>> Doug Altman <[log in to unmask]> 17/04/10 17:19 >>>
>
> Labels are convenient but are untrustworthy for scientific
> communication. Many terms are widely misused even when in principle
> they have a clear definition (although many don't even have that).
>
> Several terms used in clinical trials fall into this category - as
> well as "single blind" and indeed "double blind" and "triple blind",
> other examples include "randomised" and "intention to treat". When it
> really matters, eg in a publication or grant application, all such
> terms are inadequate and the authors need to say exactly what they
> did or plan to do.
>
>
> >>> Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]> 17/04/10 05:23 >>>
>
> In a similar vein, what is it called when the subjects are put through a
> trial of some sort, and the real reason and purpose for the experiment
> is withheld from the subjects completely?  I'm thinking of something
> like Stanley Milgram's "pain" experiments.  Subjects believed that they
> were acting as a "teacher," inflicting pain on a third person (a
> "learner") through electric shock when the "learner" gave incorrect
> answers to questions posed by the person running the experiment  But
> actually, the participants themselves were the subjects of an
> experiments to see how far they would go in their obedience to
> authority.  (The "learner" was not actually receiving any shocks, but
> was using recoded sounds, and would add to the general confusion by
> banging on the wall).
>
> You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
>
> SIGNOFF allstat
>
> to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
>

You may leave the list at any time by sending the command

SIGNOFF allstat

to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.