Ethics

Ethical frameworks

Three traditions help reason about dilemmas in experimentation:

• Consequentialist theories — judge actions by their outcomes (greatest benefit, least harm). Flexible but can justify harm to some for the greater good.
• Deontological approaches — judge actions by rules and duties (e.g., respect persons, keep promises). The Belmont Report's principles—respect for persons, beneficence, justice—are deontological in spirit.
• Virtue-based approaches — ask what a virtuous researcher would do; emphasizes character and community norms.

No single framework settles every case; good ethical reasoning draws on all three. Was Milgram's obedience study justified? The question remains live because the frameworks pull in different directions.

Responsibilities to research participants

• Institutional Review Boards (IRB) review studies for risk before they begin.
• The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is the canonical warning: exploitation and withheld treatment destroyed trust and motivated modern protections.
• Risks and benefits must be balanced; participants should face no greater risk than in daily life, and benefits should justify any burden.

These duties continue into Data collection (informed consent, debriefing) and Preregistration (honest pre-specification).

Responsibilities in analysis and reporting

Ethics does not end at the lab door. "What data?" you collect and how you handle it matters: selective reporting, hidden dropping of conditions, and p-hacking are ethical failures as well as methodological ones. Responsible Writing and honest error correction are part of the researcher's duty.

Responsibilities to the scientific community

Researchers owe the community transparent materials, data, and code so others can build on—not redo—the work. Sharing is an ethical as well as a scientific obligation (see Project management and the FAIR principles).

Key terms

• Informed consent — participants understand and agree to the study's risks and procedures.
• IRB — committee that approves research with human participants.
• Debriefing — explaining the true purpose after participation, especially if deception was used.

Further reading

• Next (Part 2): Estimation
• Carried into: Data collection
• Honest reporting: Writing
• Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct — the professional code.
• The IRB Approval Process — institutional review as the practical gatekeeper.
• Research Methods — ethics as one pillar of method.

References

• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects. (1979). The Belmont Report. U.S. Government Printing Office.