Topic Subtopic

Science Neuroscience & Psychology

Shocking Psychological
SHOCKING
PSYCHOLOGICAL
Studies and the Lessons
STUDIES
They TeachAND THE
LESSONS THEY
Course Guidebook

TEACH
Professor Thad A. Polk
University of Michigan
Thad A. Polk, PhD
 4840 Westfields Boulevard | Suite 500 | Chantilly, Virginia | 20151‑2299
[phone] 1.800.832.2412 | [fax] 703.378.3819 | [web] www.thegreatcourses.com

LEADERSHIP
PAUL SUIJK President & CEO
BRUCE G. WILLIS Chief Financial Officer 
JOSEPH PECKL SVP, Marketing
JASON SMIGEL VP, Product Development
CALE PRITCHETT VP, Marketing
MARK LEONARD VP, Technology Services
DEBRA STORMS VP, General Counsel
KEVIN MANZEL Sr. Director, Content Development
ANDREAS BURGSTALLER Sr. Director, Brand Marketing & Innovation
KEVIN BARNHILL Director of Creative
GAIL GLEESON Director, Business Operations & Planning

PRODUCTION TEAM
HEIDI MARKLEY Producer
SUSAN DYER Content Developer
MASHA STOYANOVA Associate Producer
TOM KRZYWICKI Post-Production Producer
BRIAN SCHUMACHER Graphic Artist
OWEN YOUNG Managing Editor
ANDREW VOLPE Editor
CHARLES GRAHAM Assistant Editor
GORDON HALL IV Audio Engineer
MATTHEW CALLAHAN Camera Operator
VALERIE WELCH Production Assistant
ROBERTO DE MORAES Director

PUBLICATIONS TEAM
FARHAD HOSSAIN Publications Manager
BLAKELY SWAIN Senior Copywriter
JUSTIN RINONOS Graphic Designer
JESSICA MULLINS Proofreader
ERIKA ROBERTS Publications Assistant
RENEE TREACY Fact-Checker
WILLIAM DOMANSKI Transcript Editor

Copyright © The Teaching Company, 2020

Printed in the United States of America
This book is in copyright. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under
copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form,
or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise), without the prior written permission of The Teaching Company.
Thad A. Polk, PhD
Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Psychology
University of Michigan

iii
 Professor Biography

Thad A. Polk is an Arthur F. Thurnau Professor in the Department

of Psychology at the University of Michigan. He received a
BA in Mathematics from the University of Virginia and an
interdisciplinary PhD in Computer Science and Psychology from
Carnegie Mellon University. He received postdoctoral training in
cognitive neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania before
joining the faculty at the University of Michigan.

Professor Polk’s research combines functional imaging of the

human brain with computational modeling and behavioral
methods to investigate the neural architecture underlying
cognition. Some of his major projects have investigated changes
in the brain as we age, contributions of nature versus nurture to
neural organization, and differences in the brains of smokers who
quit compared with those who do not. Professor Polk regularly
collaborates with scientists at the University of Texas at Dallas
and at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in
Berlin, where he is a frequent visiting scientist. At the University
of Michigan, he is an associate chair of the Department of
Psychology and the chair of the Health Sciences and Behavioral
Sciences Institutional Review Boards.

Professor Polk regularly teaches large lecture courses as well

as small seminars on topics ranging from the human mind and
brain, to cognitive psychology, to computational modeling of
cognition. His teaching at the University of Michigan has been
recognized with numerous awards, including the Excellence in
Education Award from the College of Literature, Science, and the
Arts as well as the Arthur F. Thurnau Professorship, the university’s
highest undergraduate teaching award. He was also named to The
Princeton Review’s list of the Best 300 Professors in the United
States.

Professor Polk’s otherGreat Courses include The Learning Brain,

The Aging Brain, and The Addictive Brain.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I’d like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Erin
Freiburger, Elsy Nouna, Samantha Roy, Bashair Pasha,
and Ryan Rich. These amazing students helped identify
potential topics to include in the course, performed
extensive literature reviews, and provided detailed
feedback and suggestions on drafts of the lessons. The
course is significantly better than it would have been
without their many substantial contributions. Thank you
so much!

I’d also like to thank my wife, Norma, and my youngest

daughter, Lydia, for their patience and support as I
spent many hours working on this course. I love you!

v
vi
 TABLE OF
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Professor Biography iv

Acknowledgments v

Disclaimer viii

Course Scope 1
GUIDES
1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook . . . . . . . 4

2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things . . . . . 18

3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children . . . . . . 32

4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons . . . . . . . . . 44

5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex . . . . . . . 56

6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges . . . . . . 68

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Multiple-Choice Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 DISCLAIMER
This series of lessons contains graphic descriptions of
violence, sexual violence, sexually explicit language,
and offensive and dehumanizing language, which may
be disturbing and may not be suitable for minors or
other audiences. The opinions and positions provided
in these lessons reflect the opinions and positions of
the relevant lecturer and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions or positions of The Teaching Company or its
affiliates.

The Teaching Company expressly DISCLAIMS LIABILITY

for any DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR LOST PROFITS
that result directly or indirectly from the use of these
lectures. In states that do not allow some or all of the
above limitations of liability, liability shall be limited to
the greatest extent allowed by law.

viii
 SCOPE
Psychological studies of human behavior can be among
the most fascinating in all of science. We all want to
have greater insight into our own thoughts, feelings,
and decisions, and psychology offers the hope of
providing that insight. But psychology also faces a
number of ethical challenges that most other scientific
fields don’t have to face. After all, when the objects
of study are human beings, scientists have to take
special care to protect the rights of those participants.
Unfortunately, not all psychologists have done so,
and this course will review some of the most shocking
examples of ethically questionable studies in the history
of psychology.

The course discusses studies examining evil human

behavior that in some ways were evil themselves.
You will learn about controversial studies that were
conducted on vulnerable children and others that were
secretly conducted by the government and military.
You’ll also learn about some ethically doubtful studies
of sexual behavior and gender identity.

Every study is placed in its historical context, and you

will be walked through exactly what was done and what
results were obtained. You’ll also dive into the studies’
ethics and think about the principles that should have
been considered, as well as how the studies violated
those principles.

The course begins by discussing a controversial study

in which the News Feeds of nearly 700,000 Facebook
users were manipulated without their knowledge in
order to investigate the effects on their posts. You’ll

1
 Course Scope

learn why this study led to significant public outrage

as well as how the scientists who conducted the study
responded.

Then, the course reviews some of the history that

led to current human research regulations, including
the infamous Tuskegee study, which followed
impoverished, uneducated syphilis victims for 40
years without providing them with treatment or even
informing them of their diagnosis. You’ll also learn
about the significant changes in regulations that were
put into place after the study was exposed. In particular,
you’ll be walked through the key ethical principles
of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice that
must now be considered before any research involving
human beings can be conducted.

With that historical background in place, the course

turns to 2 of the most famous studies in the history of
psychology: Stanley Milgram’s obedience study and the
Stanford Prison Experiment. Both of these studies shed
new light on why people sometimes behave in unethical
ways, but ironically, the studies themselves had serious
ethical problems that will be considered in some depth.

Next, the course reviews shocking psychological

studies involving children. You’ll encounter a study in
which adopted twins who had been separated at birth
were both extensively studied for years without ever
being informed that they had a sibling, much less a twin.
You’ll also learn about a study in which orphan children
were repeatedly told that they stuttered in order to
investigate the effects on their speech development.

2
 Course Scope

The course also walks you through the history of secret

psychological experimentation by the US government
and military, including the CIA’s infamous MK-Ultra
project and the testing of psychoactive chemicals like
LSD and PCP on unsuspecting military personnel.

Then, the course discusses some very controversial

studies of sexual behavior and gender identity. You’ll be
introduced to the controversial Tearoom Trade study,
in which a social scientist lied about his identity so that
he could observe and document sexual acts in public
restrooms. You’ll also learn about the tragic John/Joan
case, which involved a baby boy who was raised as a girl
at the urging of a famous psychologist.

The course concludes by addressing current and future

ethical dilemmas in the field of psychology. You’ll
consider ethical problems associated with analyzing the
enormous data sets produced by social media, internet
searches, and smartphone apps. You’ll also learn
about some recent cases of scientific fraud, in which
psychologists have manipulated—or even completely
fabricated—scientific results. Finally, you’ll encounter
some recent studies that suggest that many published
findings in the psychological literature are unreliable
and cannot be replicated.

The course will give you new insights into the world of
psychological research and make you a more discerning
consumer of the studies you hear or read about in
the popular press. It will also give you a renewed
appreciation for the self-correcting nature of science
and for the way that psychology is constantly evaluating
its practices and findings to ensure that future studies
avoid the problems of the past.

3
 Table of
Contents

LESSON 1

LESSONS FROM
TUSKEGEE AND
FACEBOOK
T his lesson will introduce some
of the ethical dilemmas that
scientists face when conducting
research with human subjects.
You will discover some of the
many ways that research can go
wrong by learning about the
infamous Tuskegee syphilis study.
But the mistakes that happened
in Tuskegee are far from the
only mistakes that researchers
studying human beings have made.

4
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

THE FACEBOOK EMOTIONAL

CONTAGION EXPERIMENT
The Facebook emotional The researchers found that
contagion experiment was when positive posts were
conducted during a weeklong deleted, the percentage of
period in January 2012 by positive words in people’s
researchers at Facebook status updates decreased by a
and Cornell University. The very slight amount relative to
scientists were interested in the control participants, while
examining whether positive the percentage of negative
and negative emotions are words increased slightly.
contagious and specifically Conversely, when negative
whether Facebook users posts were deleted, fewer
who see fewer emotionally negative words and more
positive posts in their positive words appeared in
News Feed produce fewer people’s updates. The scientists
positive posts themselves. concluded that emotions
expressed by Facebook friends
To investigate this question, can and do influence our own
the researchers made changes mood. In other words, emotions
to the News Feeds of about that are expressed on social
689,000 Facebook users. They media can be contagious.
randomly deleted 10% to 90%
of posts that contained positive
words from some users’ News
Feeds; other users had 10%
to 90% of posts containing
negative words deleted.
Still others had the same
proportion of random posts
deleted to serve as a control.
Then, the scientists analyzed
how deleting positive and
negative posts affected the
status updates of the users.

5
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

This study was published in the One of the main concerns

Proceedings of the National was that the researchers tried
Academy of Sciences, which to manipulate the mood of
is one of the most prominent nearly 700,000 people. And
scientific journals in the world. for 1/3 of those people, the
And the study has had a major goal was to make their mood
impact on the field—although worse rather than better. Many
it’s not the impact that the people were concerned that
authors had hoped for. the study could be causing
emotional harm to hundreds
Almost immediately, a of thousands of people.
number of people slammed
the study as being unethical. Worse yet, the people in the
Critical articles appeared in experiment weren’t even aware
academic journals as well as that they were in an experiment.
in popular outlets like Forbes, They were just browsing their

As you learn about each of the

shocking studies featured in this
course, ask yourself these questions:
What is it about the study that
crossed a line?

What line was crossed?

What policies and principles should

be in place to make sure that line
isn’t crossed in the future?

The Atlantic, The Guardian, Facebook site like they always

and The New York Times. The do, checking their friends’
study also triggered thousands posts and updating their
of protest posts on social own status. They never gave
media. But why the outrage? the scientists permission to

6
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

analyze their status updates, This study could therefore be

much less to mess with their seen as a standard algorithm
News Feeds. Or did they? test. The main difference is
that this test was published
Before people can sign up in the scientific literature.
for Facebook, they do have
to agree to certain terms, The scientists involved also
including a data use policy. pointed out that no posts
And the published paper were deleted; they just didn’t
actually mentioned this fact.1 show up on some loads of the
News Feed. But a post that was
Furthermore, it turns out omitted for one load could
that Facebook manipulates show up in the very next load.
News Feeds all the time and And all posts were always
analyzes the results for internal visible on friends’ Timelines.
purposes. Given that Facebook
can’t feasibly include every post Furthermore, the effect of the
that friends make in a user’s experimental manipulation
News Feed, it uses an algorithm was very small. In fact, out of
to determine which posts to every 1000 words in the status
include and which posts to updates in the week following
omit. And different versions the experiment, people in
of that algorithm are regularly the experimental conditions
tried in order to improve it. produced about 1 fewer

7
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

emotional word compared seeing lots of positive posts

to the control subjects. The from friends might make people
participants were almost feel left out and unhappy. The
certainly completely unaware researchers wanted to find out
of any effect on their mood. if this concern was valid, but
their results actually suggest
Finally, the scientists pointed the opposite: Seeing positive
out that the motivation for posts makes Facebook users
the study was altruistic. Many more positive, not less.
people are concerned that

THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS STUDY

The Tuskegee syphilis study was much more common,
has had a bigger impact on the and the recommended
regulations governing human treatments included repeated
research than any other study doses of heavy metals like
in history. It also illustrates mercury and arsenic, which
some of the key principles that are toxic themselves.2
studies today must abide by.
And that’s because it violated There was very little data on
pretty much all of them! how effective these treatments
were relative to no treatment,
Syphilis is a bacterial infection especially in patients who
that usually spreads through had had the disease for a
sexual contact. Today, syphilis long time. After all, syphilis
can be easily treated with can go dormant for decades
penicillin, but before penicillin before becoming active again.
came along, the disease It’s therefore natural to ask

2 Some doctors even recommended intentionally exposing syphilis

patients to malaria because the associated high fever could help in
the treatment of the disease.

8
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

how much benefit there is in for it. Most of these men were
treating late-stage patients sharecroppers who were
with something like mercury typically very poor, were not
compared with not treating able to read, and had almost no
them at all. Are people who access to quality medical care.3
aren’t treated more likely
to die? Do they experience In 1932, researchers
significantly more health established themselves in
problems later in life? If so, what Tuskegee, Alabama, and tried
are those health problems? to recruit as many of these
poor, black syphilis victims as
Those are the kinds of possible to study the effects
questions that the Tuskegee of the untreated disease.
syphilis study wanted to answer.
To do so, researchers would The researchers took medical
have to follow syphilis patients histories, performed medical
who received treatment as exams, drew blood, and
well as patients who didn’t conducted diagnostic tests
receive treatment in order to on more than 1700 people.
be able to compare the health They also wanted to perform
outcomes in the 2 groups spinal taps to check for
and figure out how effective evidence of infection in the
the treatments really were. brain and central nervous
system, but spinal taps were
The problem was finding a lot painful and could also lead to
of people with syphilis who had severe headaches for days if
never been treated. But it turns done incorrectly. In order to
out that surveys in the early encourage people to come
1900s discovered that there in, the researchers sent out
was a large number of African a letter portraying the spinal
American men in rural areas in tap as a treatment rather than
the South who had contracted
syphilis but were never treated

3 A sharecropper was essentially a person who farmed someone else’s

land in exchange for some of the crops.

9
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

a test. The letter worked, The researchers decided

and more than 300 people to continue the study. And
came in for spinal taps. 4 to encourage people to
participate, the scientists
By this point, the researchers decided to offer what they
had a lot of data from a large called “treatment” but
number of late-stage syphilis actually consisted of aspirin
victims. Most of the team and tonics. Participants
assumed that data collection would also be given small
was done. But one of the amounts of oral mercury if
researchers argued that they they asked for it, but not at
should continue to study these the recommended dosage.
untreated syphilis victims over
the long term. These indigent The study team also offered
sharecroppers were going to cover $50 in burial costs for
to return to their lives, and any participant that agreed to
almost none of them would an autopsy after his death. This
get treated for their syphilis. was a significant incentive to
So why not continue testing the members of this very poor
them over the next 5 to 10 community, who often couldn’t
years to see how the untreated pay for a reasonable funeral.
disease developed? And if the
participants would agree to an Ultimately, the team managed
autopsy after their death, then to recruit about 400 people
the scientists would have much who had untreated syphilis for
more direct evidence about at least 5 years and who had not
the ways that untreated syphilis received significant treatment
can damage the human body. for it. They also recruited
another roughly 200 people
who tested negative for syphilis

4 The letter said, “You will now be given your last chance to get a
second examination. This examination is a very special one and after
it is finished you will be given a special treatment if it is believed you
are in a condition to stand it.” The letter concluded: “Remember this
is your last chance for special free treatment. Be sure to meet the
nurse.”

10
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

and 275 people who had been to everyone even if they

treated for syphilis during the wanted to. So they continued
early stages of the disease. the study. They continued
to investigate how things
Very quickly, the researchers progressed and to perform
discovered that treatment autopsies as participants died.
made a significant difference,
even the clearly inadequate Then, in the 1940s, penicillin
treatment of the time period. became available, and
For example, in 1936, they scientists demonstrated that it
published a paper pointing out was very effective in killing the
that the untreated group was 2 bacteria that causes syphilis.
to 3 times more likely to have In fact, penicillin is still the
cardiovascular and neurological drug of choice in treating
damage than the treated group. syphilis to this day. And by the
end of the 1940s, penicillin
The team now had a very clear was regularly being used to
answer to whether people with actually cure syphilis, at least
syphilis were better off in the when caught in the early
long term if they were treated stages. It was also often used
with heavy metals or were left in treating late-stage syphilis,
untreated: Treatment definitely although there was debate
helps. Today, researchers in
such a situation would be
required to stop the study and
inform the participants about
what they had found. And
ideally, they would also offer
the treatment to everyone.

But the Tuskegee study

scientists apparently didn’t
consider informing the
participants about their
findings or trying to treat
them. And they didn’t have the
money to provide treatment

11
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

about whether it should be that they actively tried to

because the long-term effects prevent the study participants
of penicillin were not yet known. from getting treatment.5

Today, researchers would be The study continued for

required to tell participants decades. And despite the
about a new treatment that very large number of people
is potentially more effective directly involved in the study
than what they’re getting. And over such a long period of time,
most researchers would offer none of them raised concerns,
the treatment for free if they at least publicly, about
had the resources to do so. whether it was ethical or not.

But that’s not what the Likewise, despite decades

researchers in this study did. of publications and public
From their point of view, if their presentations about the
no-treatment group started study and its results, very
receiving treatment, then that few scientists or members
would make it impossible to of the public questioned the
draw conclusions about the study’s ethics or the ethics of
effects of treatment. Essentially, the researchers involved.
they would lose their control
group and wouldn’t have The person who is most
anything to compare against. responsible for exposing the
So they didn’t tell the study ethical problems with the
participants about the Tuskegee syphilis study is
availability of penicillin. In probably Peter Buxtun, a social
fact, there’s some evidence worker and epidemiologist
who was tracking down
people in San Francisco

5 The entry of the United States into World War II meant that study
participants might get drafted, and if they did, they would get
medical exams and likely receive treatment for syphilis. To avoid
this possibility, the researchers contacted the head of the local draft
board and explained the importance of the study. Almost none of
the study participants ended up being drafted.

12
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

with syphilis and gonorrhea, racism. Reporters tracked down

interviewing them to try to some of the study participants
identify sexual partners, and discovered that most of
and encouraging all those them didn’t realize what the
affected to get treatment.6 study was about. The men
mentioned being told that
Buxtun found out about the they had what was referred
syphilis study in 1965 and was to as “bad blood,” but many
very concerned. For years, he didn’t know that this meant
shared his concerns with friends they had syphilis. And virtually
and colleagues, filed formal all of them thought that the
protests, and even met with aspirins and tonics they had
leaders in both the US Public been given were a treatment
Health Service and the Centers for their so-called bad blood.
for Disease Control. But nothing
was done to stop the study. An ad hoc advisory panel
was convened to investigate
That all changed in 1972, when the study, and after reading
Buxtun gave documentation many of the documents and
to an Associated Press interviewing some of the
reporter named Jean Heller. people involved, the panel
She published the story on determined that the study
July 25, 1972, with the title had been ethically unjustified.
“Syphilis Victims in US Study They pointed out that the
Went Untreated for 40 Years.” participants had not been
adequately informed about
The reaction was fast—and the true nature of the study
enormous. The 1950s and and had therefore not given
1960s had seen the rise of the truly informed consent.
civil rights movement, and the The panel also mentioned
fact that the Tuskegee study that the men should have
targeted poor, underprivileged been treated with penicillin
black men was consistent with after it became available.
other examples of institutional

6 Ironically, Buxtun worked for the same government organization that

oversaw the Tuskegee syphilis study: the US Public Health Service.

13
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

A class action lawsuit was filed 2 major charges: to identify

in 1973 and was ultimately the basic ethical principles
settled for $10 million. As that should govern all research
part of the settlement, the US involving human subjects and
government agreed to provide to develop guidelines that
lifetime medical benefits and all human research should
burial services to all study follow in order to be consistent
participants who were still alive. with the ethical principles.

The study also came before The commission worked on

a congressional hearing this task for a few years and
organized by Senator Ted ultimately drafted a report
Kennedy, who afterward at the Belmont Conference
proposed a National Center in Maryland in 1976.
Commission for the Protection Now known as The Belmont
of Human Subjects of Report, it radically changed
Biomedical and Behavioral the way research involving
Research. The commission had human subjects is regulated.

THE BELMONT REPORT

The Belmont Report identified 1 Respect for persons.
3 key ethical principles that Basically, researchers who
should be considered when do experiments with human
conducting research with subjects should treat those
human subjects: respect subjects with respect. The
for persons, beneficence, report identified 2 key ethical
and justice. It also proposed considerations related to
practical guidelines that this principle. First, human
researchers should follow based subjects should be treated
on those ethical principles. as autonomous agents who
have free will and should
be given the opportunity

14
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

Most of the psychological studies that

will be discussed in this course were
conducted before The Belmont Report was
published. And they all violated the
Belmont principles and guidelines in one
way or another. In fact, the case can be
made that the way these studies violated
the Belmont principles is precisely what
makes them shocking by today’s ethical
standards.

to decide for themselves, presented in a way that the

without any coercion, whether participants can understand,
they want to participate in and participants should
the research study. Second, be able to make their own
research involving people with decision about participation
diminished autonomy—such as without any threat of harm
children, prisoners, and those or inappropriate reward.
with mental disabilities—should
provide such individuals with u The Tuskegee study
extra protections to ensure violated this principle. In
that they are not exploited or particular, the participants
exposed to unnecessary risks. were not given complete
information about the
In keeping with this principle, study’s goals or their
The Belmont Report role in the study. And
recommended requiring they were never given an
informed consent whenever opportunity to make an
human research is conducted. informed decision about
Basically, potential research whether they would like to
participants should be participate in the study. You
given enough information could also make a case that
about the study to make offering burial benefits in
a well-informed decision, exchange for agreeing to
that information should be an autopsy was coercive.

15
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

2 Beneficence. This refers to 3 Justice. Is the research

looking out for the well-being study fair? In other words,
of research participants. In does it treat different people
particular, do no harm, just like equally, both in terms of sharing
in medicine. More generally, in the benefits of the research
this principle incorporates the and in bearing the risks? The
idea of maximizing benefits practical application of justice is
while minimizing risks. This that researchers must develop
idea applies to not only the fair procedures for how they
research participants but select people to participate
also society as a whole. in their studies. They must be
sensitive to issues of gender,
In light of this ethical race, age, socioeconomic
principle, The Belmont Report status, and culture and do their
recommended that all potential best to ensure that they are
research involving human not being unfair to some social
subjects should carefully groups relative to others.
consider both the benefits and
risks of the research. Studies u The Tuskegee study
should only be carried out if would earn a failing score
the benefits outweigh the risks. in terms of justice. The
And researchers are required study specifically targeted
to inform potential participants indigent black men to
about the benefits and risks participate in a study with
of a given study before asking significant risks, despite the
for their informed consent. fact that syphilis can affect
anyone. Furthermore, the
u The Tuskegee study knowledge gained from
fell short in terms of the study largely benefitted
beneficence, at least for the people who were much
participants themselves. better off financially
They were intentionally and who had access to
denied potentially helpful quality medical care.
treatment for a serious
disease and were not
explicitly informed that
this was happening.

16
 Lesson 1 Lessons from Tuskegee and Facebook

SUGGESTED READINGS
Jones, Bad Blood.
Kramer, Guillory, and Hancock, “Experimental
Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion
through Social Networks.”
National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research,
The Belmont Report.
Reverby, Examining Tuskegee.

17
 Table of
Contents
LESSON 2

PUSHING GOOD
PEOPLE TO DO BAD
THINGS
S tanley Milgram’s obedience study
and the Stanford Prison Experiment
are 2 of the most famous, but also
infamous, studies in the history
of psychology. Both studies taught
us some very important lessons
about human nature—specifically
about how authority and power can
have a profound influence on our
behavior, and not always for the
good. These studies significantly
changed our understanding of
human behavior and inspired entire
lines of research that continue
to this day. But both studies
also raised ethical dilemmas.

18
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

STANLEY MILGRAM’S OBEDIENCE

STUDY
Stanley Milgram’s obedience logistical undertaking that
study was conducted at Yale required thousands of people
University in the early 1960s. performing a huge variety
This was around the time of the of different jobs. Eichmann
highly publicized trial of Adolph may have overseen this huge
Eichmann, who was in charge of operation, but he obviously
organizing the transportation couldn’t have done it alone. So
of Jews to concentration camps why did all the German soldiers,
in eastern Europe during World and even many civilians,
War II. He therefore played cooperate in this incredibly evil
a central role in the death of undertaking? Why didn’t they
around 6 million people. simply refuse to participate?

Eichmann’s trial was the first The answer that most of these
ever to be televised, and it people gave afterward was
generated huge interest all that they had no choice—they
over the world. Before his were simply following orders.
trial, most people didn’t fully But wouldn’t ordinary people
recognize the magnitude refuse to obey orders like that?
of the atrocities committed Wouldn’t their conscience
during the Holocaust. But prevent them from doing so?
the television coverage
of this trial brought home That’s the question that Milgram
those atrocities to millions of was interested in answering.
people around the world. Milgram was Jewish himself
and was deeply affected by
Learning about the scope of what he learned about the
the Holocaust led to many Holocaust. He decided to
questions, including how design a scientific experiment
could all the people involved to determine whether ordinary
in carrying out these acts of people really will follow orders
cruelty go along with it? After even when those orders involve
all, the Holocaust was a massive harming someone else.

19
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

Of course, most people who would test the learner’s

wouldn’t volunteer to memory and punish mistakes by
participate in an experiment if administering an electric shock.
they knew it involved hurting
other people, so Milgram But it turns out that only one
came up with a cover story. of the 2 people was an actual
He posted fliers asking for participant. The other person
men between the ages of 20 was just pretending to be a
and 50 to participate in an participant and was actually a
experiment on learning and confederate who was working
memory. When volunteers with Milgram. This confederate
arrived, they were paired up and the real experimental
with another person and were subject then drew a slip of
told that the experiment was paper out of a hat, supposedly
designed to test whether to determine who was going
people learn better when they to be the teacher and who
are punished for mistakes. One was going to be the learner.
of the participants would be the They were then asked what
learner, who would try to learn a their paper said. Both pieces
bunch of word pairs. The other of paper said “teacher,” but
person would be the teacher, the confederate claimed that

Consider This
In many psychology experiments, knowing
the purpose of the study could change the
participants’ behavior, so it’s crucial not to
tell them the true nature of the experiment
beforehand. In practice, this often means
deceiving research participants in some way
about the study’s goal. Essentially, the
psychologist has to lie to the participants
or else the experiment won’t work. Is that
ever ethically justified? And if so, when and
how should it be done? Keep these questions
in mind as you read about the Milgram
obedience study.

20
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

his said “learner.” In this way, the explanation that it would

the real experimental subjects help the learner avoid blisters
were always assigned to be the and burns. Once strapped in,
teacher and the confederate the confederate asked about
was always the learner. the safety of the procedure,
and the experimenter told him:
Next, the teacher and the “Although the shocks can be
learner were both led into a extremely painful, they cause
room that contained a chair no permanent tissue damage.”
with straps that looked sort of
like an electric chair. The fake The real experimental subject
learner was then strapped into was then led into an adjacent
this chair and an electrode was room, where he was seated
attached to his skin, supposedly in front of a machine that he
to shock him whenever he was told would generate the
made a mistake. An electrode electric shocks to punish the
paste was also applied with learner for mistakes. This shock

21
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

generator had 30 switches although it was generated

set in a horizontal line, and by a 45-volt battery hidden
each switch was labeled with a inside the machine rather
voltage in 15-volt increments than by the machine itself.
from left to right, starting at
15 volts and going all the way After all this setup, the
up to 450 volts. Furthermore, experiment finally began. First,
each group of 4 switches had the teacher was instructed to
a verbal label on the machine, read a list of word pairs, which
ranging from “slight shock” to the learner was supposed to
“danger: severe shock” and try to remember. Then, the
with the 2 rightmost switches teacher would read the first
simply labeled “XXX.” word from one of the pairs,
and the learner was supposed
When one of these switches was to choose the word that was
depressed, a red light next to paired with that word. The
that switch turned on. Then, the learner was given 4 options and
machine produced an electric supposedly indicated his choice
buzzing sound, a blue light by pressing one of 4 buttons.
labeled “voltage energizer”
flashed, and a voltage If the learner answered
meter swung to the right. correctly, nothing happened,
and the next test word was
And all of this was fake—no presented. But if the learner
shock was actually being answered incorrectly, then
delivered! The goal was just the teacher was instructed to
to convince the teacher that punish him by administering
he was indeed administering a 15-volt shock. And the
painful shocks to the learner teacher was told to increase
in the other room. the strength of the shock with
each subsequent mistake—
The teacher was also until the teacher either
connected to the machine could not be convinced to
and given a 45-volt sample continue or had administered
shock before the experiment the maximum shock of 450
began. And he really did volts 3 consecutive times.
receive a 45-volt shock,

22
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

Of course, the confederate in to administer shocks even

the other room wasn’t really when the learner in the other
getting shocked. In fact, he room became nonresponsive.
wasn’t doing the learning task
at all. He was simply giving a The men who were serving as
predetermined set of responses teachers would often turn to
with about 3 mistakes for every the experimenter to express
1 correct answer. So the teacher reservations about continuing
was being asked to give a lot of to shock the learner under
shocks, and as far as the teacher these kinds of conditions.
knew, those shocks were But the experimenter would
becoming very, very strong. always ask the teacher to go
on using a sequence of prods.
Worse yet, as the shocks First, the experimenter would
increased in intensity, the simply say, “Please continue”
confederate in the other room or “Please go on.” If the
would start to protest. For teacher still protested, then
example, when the 300-volt the experimenter would say,
shock was administered, the “The experiment requires that
confederate would pound on you continue.” If that wasn’t
the wall. In some versions of the enough, then the experimenter
experiment, the confederate would say, “It is absolutely
would scream and demand essential that you continue.”
that the experiment be Finally, if none of these prods
stopped, even claiming that worked, then the experimenter
he was concerned about his would say, “You have no other
heart. Typically, the protests choice; you must go on.”
would stop as the voltage
level continued to increase The goal was to see whether
and the confederate would go ordinary people would continue
completely silent, suggesting to obey the experimenter even
that he was now either when they personally believed
unconscious or potentially even that they were causing the
dead. But the teachers were learner very significant pain
instructed to treat no response and perhaps even permanent
as a mistake and to continue damage. Would ordinary

23
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

American men obey unethical Consider the Milgram study

orders like Nazi soldiers in light of the Belmont
did during World War II? principles: respect for persons,
beneficence, and justice. What
The results were sobering. Out most people find objectionable
of 40 men who participated about the study is that it did not
in the experiment as teachers, demonstrate an appropriate
26 of them—65%!—continued respect for the experimental
to obey the experimenter’s subjects. In particular, they
instructions and never stopped were told that they were
administering the shocks. participating in an experiment
And subsequent experiments about learning and memory
that were done with women and were unaware that they
or in other cultures or that were going to be asked to
were performed in slightly cause significant pain to other
different ways have found people when they volunteered.
the same thing: Nearly 2/3 of And as a result, most of them
people will continue to obey experienced quite significant
orders from an authority figure psychological trauma.
even when those orders are
unethical and clearly violate Milgram himself reported that
their own conscience. participants were observed
to sweat, tremble, stutter,
The Milgram obedience bite their lips, groan, and dig
study generated significant their fingernails into their own
controversy when it was first flesh. Three of the participants
published. And keep in mind were even described as
that it was conducted more experiencing full-blown,
than 15 years before The uncontrollable seizures. That
Belmont Report was drafted. level of psychological trauma
would never be allowed today.7

7 All legitimate psychological experiments must be reviewed by an

institutional review board, which explicitly considers whether the
study satisfies all of the Belmont principles. The Milgram obedience
study clearly doesn’t and would therefore not be able to be
conducted today.

24
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

THE STANFORD PRISON

EXPERIMENT
The Stanford Prison Experiment Those are the questions
was conducted by Philip that Zimbardo wanted to
Zimbardo at Stanford University investigate. He decided to
in 1971, about 10 years after create a simulated prison, but
Milgram’s obedience study.8 one in which both the prisoners
and guards were regular,
Like Milgram, Zimbardo everyday college students.
wanted to examine the causes He posted a newspaper ad
of unethical behavior. But seeking male college students
rather than studying the role for a scientific study of prison
of obedience to authority, life. The ad mentioned that
Zimbardo wanted to examine the study would last 1 to 2
the influence of the situation weeks and that participants
or environment—specifically, would be paid per day.9
the environment of a prison.
More than 70 people
Prisons are notorious for responded to the ad. Zimbardo
unethical behavior, and not just and his team then interviewed
by prisoners. Prison guards at the potential participants
numerous correctional facilities and selected 24 men whom
have been found to be cruel they thought were the most
and inhumane. But why? Is it mature, the most stable, and
that the people themselves the least involved in antisocial
are evil or unethical, or does behavior.10 Half these men were
the prison environment randomly assigned to serve
bring out unethical behavior
in ordinary people?

8 Zimbardo and Milgram were actually high school classmates!

9 The participants were paid $15 per day, which would be nearly $100
per day in today’s dollars.
10 All of the participants were completely normal as far as the
psychologists could tell, and none of them had any obvious
tendencies toward unethical or antisocial behavior.

25
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

Consider This
The scientists conducting a study might
have a conflict of interest and might not
always consider the best interests of the
people they are studying. For example, if
a study is producing interesting results,
the scientists running it might want it
to continue even if the experience is
unpleasant for the participants. This was
a major problem in the Stanford Prison
Experiment.

as prisoners in the study, and wore mirror sunglasses so

the other 1/2 were assigned that the prisoners could not
to serve as prison guards. see their eyes. The guards
were strictly instructed not to
Zimbardo and his team physically harm the prisoners
constructed a simulated prison in any way, but otherwise,
in the basement of Stanford’s they were invited to use their
Psychology Building, where discretion to keep order in
the prisoners would live during the prison. An undergraduate
the study. They built a few research assistant served
cells, each of which contained as the prison warden, and
3 cots, and the hallway outside Zimbardo himself was the
the cells served as the prison prison superintendent.
yard. There was also a closet
that was used to put prisoners To increase the realism of the
in solitary confinement. Video experience, Zimbardo asked
cameras and microphones the Palo Alto police to actually
were installed to record the arrest the men assigned to
behavior of everyone involved. be prisoners. The police went
to their homes, put them in
The simulated guards were handcuffs, drove them to
given khaki uniforms, a billy the police station, and went
club, and a whistle. They also through a standard booking

26
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

The goal was to make the

simulated prisoners feel
anonymous and humiliated
like real prisoners undoubtedly
often feel. They were also
required to refer to each other
by their prison ID number
rather than by their name,
and the guards referred to
them in the same way.

The guards performed prisoner

counts that were modeled
after similar counts in real
prisons. During these counts,
the prisoners would be lined
up in the hallway and had to
procedure. The prisoners recite their prison ID numbers.
were then blindfolded and These counts provided an
driven to the simulated prison, opportunity for the guards to
where they were searched, interact with the prisoners and
stripped naked, and sprayed assert their authority. They
with a delousing spray. happened at all hours, even in
the middle of the night, when
The simulated prisoners were the prisoners were asleep.
then issued a smock with a
prison ID number printed on During the first day of the
the front and back for them study, not much happened.
to wear. They were also given The prisoners didn’t seem to
rubber sandals and a nylon take the study very seriously
stocking, which they were and even laughed at the
ordered to put on their head guards’ attempts to make the
to cover their hair. Finally, prison seem like a real one.
a chain was bolted around But that changed dramatically
each prisoner’s right ankle. on the second day.

27
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

The guards responded by

spraying a fire extinguisher
through the bars of the cells
to get the prisoners away
from the doors. Then, they
broke into the cells, removed
the beds, took away the
prisoners’ smocks, and put the
leaders of the rebellion in the
solitary confinement closet.

Next, they decided to employ

psychological tactics in an
effort to prevent similar revolts
in the future. Specifically, they
withdrew privileges from the
prisoners most involved in the
rebellion. Those prisoners were
left in their cells without their
beds or smocks. Conversely,
the prisoners least involved
were given back their smocks
and beds and were allowed
to brush their teeth and wash
themselves. These “good”
prisoners were also given
food in the presence of the
The prisoners decided to stage “bad” prisoners, who were
a sort of rebellion. They took temporarily denied food.
the nylon stockings off their
heads, ripped the numbers off After this rebellion, things got
their smocks, and pushed their significantly worse. The guards
cots up against the cell doors became harsher and began to
to prevent the guards from act in ways that many would
getting in. They also began view as cruel and unethical.
to curse at the guards and For example, they would force
refused to follow their orders. the prisoners to urinate and

28
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

defecate in a bucket in their even made the prisoners clean

cell rather than taking them toilet bowls with their bare
to the bathroom. Sometimes hands and simulate sodomy.
they even refused to let the
prisoners empty the buckets, Finally, after only 6 days of
and their cells began to smell. what was originally planned
as a 14-day experiment, the
Before the end of the second researchers decided to call the
day, one of the prisoners whole thing off. But it wasn’t
suffered what seemed to be because they themselves
an emotional breakdown, realized how unethical the
cursing, crying uncontrollably, experiment had become. They
and exhibiting extreme rage. were all fully engrossed in
Ultimately, the researchers their roles as prison officials
decided that they had to let him and had lost sight of the fact
leave the experiment. But doing that these were all innocent
so led to new complications, college students who had
and the guards’ treatment of volunteered to participate
the prisoners got even worse. in a psychological study.
The prisoner counts turned into
multiple-hour ordeals. Guards

29
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

Rather, it was Christina There were a few major ethical

Maslach, who had recently oversights with the experiment.
graduated with her doctorate First, the researchers continued
from Stanford, who pointed the study even after it became
out that the study had gotten clear that participants were
completely out of hand.11 She suffering. Even if they hadn’t
came to the simulated prison anticipated all the problems
to interview the participants that arose, once they saw
and saw the prisoners being prisoners going through
marched to the toilet with significant emotional pain and
their legs chained and with the guards acting sadistically,
bags over their heads. She they should have immediately
opened Zimbardo’s eyes stopped the study. Instead,
to what was going on, and they not only carefully observed
he stopped the study. all of the disturbing behavior,
but they actively sought
The Stanford Prison Experiment ways to keep the experiment
had some very significant going. That’s a clear violation
ethical problems. Notice that of respect for persons.
unlike the Milgram obedience
study, the participants in the Another major oversight was
prison experiment knew what Zimbardo’s decision to get
they were volunteering for, at personally involved by serving
least initially. The prisoners as the prison superintendent. By
knew that some of their civil his own admission, he started
liberties would be temporarily to think more and more like a
removed. Likewise, the guards real prison superintendent. He
understood their expected role began to lose sight of the best
in disciplining the simulated interests of the students in the
prisoners. And everyone experiment, thereby violating
agreed to play their part. So the principle of beneficence.
what was the problem?

11 Zimbardo ended up marrying Maslach, the whistleblower of his

experiment!

30
 Lesson 2 Pushing Good People to Do Bad Things

SUGGESTED READINGS
Milgram, Obedience to Authority.
Oatley, Our Minds, Our Selves.
Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect.

31
 Table of
Contents

LESSON 3

EXPERIMENTING
ON VULNERABLE
CHILDREN
T wo notorious psychological studies
that involved children are the
Neubauer twin study and a study
of stuttering that has come to be
known simply as the monster study.
One of the things that makes these
studies particularly shocking
is that they involved children,
some of the most vulnerable
people in our population.

32
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

THE NEUBAUER TWIN STUDY

In 1980, when Bobby Shafran local newspapers with a
arrived at Sullivan County picture of the long-lost
Community College in New brothers. And that’s when
York to start school, and things really got crazy.
despite the fact that this was
his first day and he didn’t Unbelievably, Bobby and Eddy
know anyone, students at the actually had another identical
school were welcoming him sibling named David Kellman,
back and calling him Eddy. who had been adopted
by yet another family. And
It turns out that Bobby looked David was also completely
exactly like a former Sullivan unaware of the existence of
County student named Eddy any biological siblings. But that
Galland. And that’s because all changed when he picked
they were actually identical up a newspaper and saw a
twins who had been adopted picture of 2 men who looked
by different families 19 exactly like he did. A few phone
years earlier! But neither of calls later and the triplets
them knew they even had were reunited for the first
a biological sibling, much time since they were babies.
less a biological sibling who
was an identical twin. The boys became overnight
celebrities, appearing on talk
The story of these identical shows and being featured in
twins who randomly numerous magazine articles.
discovered each other after They moved in together and
being separated from infancy opened their own restaurant,
generated significant interest, named Triplets Roumanian
and a newspaper article Steakhouse. They were even
describing the incredible the subject of an award-
reunion ran in some of the

Which is more important to a person’s

identity and personality: nature or nurture?

33
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

winning documentary called tested their cognitive skills

Three Identical Strangers, and motor performance for
which was released in 2018. years after their adoption.

And as incredible as their All of the children were

story sounds, it turns out that actually part of a scientific
they were not alone. At least study that was overseen
5 other pairs of identical twins by an eminent psychiatrist
at the same adoption agency named Peter Neubauer.
had also been split up and
placed in separate families. The adoptions of all the children
And those families also weren’t were handled by Louise Wise
told that their new child had Services, a highly respected
a twin. Nevertheless, all of adoption agency for Jewish
these children were carefully children and families in New
followed and repeatedly York City that closed in 2004.
visited by researchers who The agency was advised by a
prominent child psychiatrist
named Viola Bernard, who

34
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

recommended that twins being interested in the forces that

put up for adoption should be shape a person’s personality
placed in different families. In and mental health. Neubauer
a recently discovered memo, knew about the identical
she explained that she thought siblings who were being
“early mothering would be less raised in different families
burdened and divided and the and saw it as an extremely
child’s developing individuality rare opportunity to study the
would be facilitated.” effects of nature versus nurture
on human development.
This belief was not based on
solid scientific evidence, and The basic question is profound:
in fact, most developmental What makes a person turn
psychologists today would out the way he or she does?
argue that the benefits of
keeping siblings together far Typically, it’s impossible to
outweigh any potential costs. tease apart the effects of
Nevertheless, based on Dr. environment (nurture) from the
Bernard’s recommendation, effects of genetics (nature).
Louise Wise Services began After all, we all have different
splitting up siblings and placing DNA, and we all go through
them in different families unique experiences, even
in the 1950s. Furthermore, if we’re raised in the same
in keeping with the closed household. And if both nature
adoption policy of the time, and nurture are varying, then
adopting families were not told there’s no way to figure out
about the biological mother which is playing the most
or any biological siblings.12 significant role in shaping our
personality and individual
Enter Dr. Peter Neubauer, a characteristics. The only way to
clinical professor of psychiatry distinguish the 2 influences is
at New York University who was

12 All adoptions at the time were closed, which means the researchers
were legally prohibited from telling the adopting families about the
biological parents or any biological siblings. The researchers were
therefore complying with New York State law by withholding that
information.

35
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

to find a group of people who knew that the children had

vary on one of those factors identical siblings growing
but don’t vary on the other. up in other households.

And that’s exactly what identical In fact, the researchers typically

siblings who are reared apart tested both twins, just on
provide. They grow up in different days. However,
completely different family they were under strict orders
environments with different not to tell the families about
parents, siblings, and friends— the other siblings or about
yet their DNA is identical. the true purpose of the
If they end up having very study. Instead, the study was
similar characteristics and portrayed as an investigation
personalities as adults, then of the development of adopted
it provides strong evidence children. And the study
that nature is playing a continued under that pretense
dominant role. Conversely, if for decades until it was finally
they end being very different stopped in 1980. And even after
as adults, it suggests that it was stopped, the siblings
nurture is more important. still weren’t informed that
they had an identical sibling
Neubauer therefore decided out in the world somewhere,
to follow at least 5 sets of nor were they told about the
separated identical twins, as true nature of the study.
well as the infamous triplets,
as they grew up. He recruited But some of them found out
some research assistants and anyway. Of course, the triplets
instructed them to repeatedly found each other, but they
visit the children in their weren’t alone. For example,
homes and to administer another person in the study,
a whole bunch of tests, all Elyse Schein, discovered she
while filming the children had a twin sister when she
and observing their behavior. went looking for her biological
These research assistants all parents and contacted Louise
Wise Services in 2002. She
managed to track down

36
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

her long-lost sister, and the Initially, most of the twins felt
twins ended up writing a genuine excitement about
book about their experience, finally connecting with a
called Identical Strangers.13 potential soulmate and were
eager to learn about each
In most cases, people who had other’s lives and compare
been in the study were thrilled notes. But relatively soon,
to be reunited with the brother many of the study participants
or sister they never knew they also began to feel bitter
had. Many of them reported and violated. The more they
developing a very strong connected with their newfound
bond with their newfound twin brother or sister, the more
almost immediately. They also they realized what they had
often discovered that they missed growing up. And most
had a remarkable amount in of them deeply regretted being
common even though they separated as babies at the
had never met before, such whim of an adoption agency.
as drinking the same kind of
beer or studying the same Furthermore, at least 2 of the
subject in school.14 These families reported that their
kinds of similarities suggest children exhibited signs of
that our DNA plays a powerful significant distress immediately
role in shaping our personality after the adoption, and in
and habits—a conclusion that hindsight they wondered if
is consistent with numerous this wasn’t a severe form of
other twin studies, as well separation anxiety. Some family
as many animal studies. members were convinced that
being separated from their
identical siblings at 6 months

13 This title presumably inspired the title of the Three Identical

Strangers documentary that was made about the triplets in 2018.
14 One set of male twins who were reunited in their late 30s discovered
that in many ways they had lived parallel lives. They both coached
hockey and had children who played hockey and wore the same
jersey number. They both got married in the same year and married
women who were runners with type-A personalities. Perhaps most
astonishingly, they both carried their wallets in their front pockets.

37
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

of age was very traumatic for And to add insult to injury, the
the children and may have twins and triplets who were
contributed to mental health part of the study still don’t know
problems that many of them what the ultimate scientific
experienced later in life. In fact, conclusions were. In 1990,
at least 3 of the children who Dr. Neubauer and the Jewish
were part of the study ended Board of Family and Children’s
up committing suicide, and Services donated all the
some of the families wonder records from the study to Yale
if being separated from their University. But those records
siblings may have played a role. are sealed until October 25,
2065. This means that no one
Many of the twins also resented can access them without the
being misled over an extended Jewish Board’s approval. And
period of time. The researchers initially, that even included
had repeatedly visited their the children themselves.
homes when they were growing
up, and the children and their However, after receiving
families believed that the goal repeated requests from some
was to study the development of the children involved,
of adopted children. But all and after the study received
the researchers knew that significant publicity from the
the children were actually Three Identical Strangers movie,
participating in a twin study the Jewish Board agreed that
whose goal was to investigate children who were involved
the role of nature versus nurture in the study should be able to
in human development. have access to their own data.

The twins particularly resented As a result, the children now

never being told that they had have access to redacted
an identical sibling. After all, copies of their own records,
the researchers interacted although they still can’t see all
with each child and the child’s the other information about
twin many times over many the study, including the final
years, yet they never told conclusions. The study’s
the children that they had a results were never thoroughly
sibling, much less a twin. described in a formal scientific

38
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

paper, so naturally, many of based on the benefits,

the family members feel like also seems questionable
all they went through was in this case. After all, what
for nothing.15 It didn’t even were the benefits if the
help to advance science. results are under seal and
not available to advance
In light of the Belmont scientific knowledge? And
principles, this study could even if the results were
never be conducted today. In available, it’s not clear what
fact, you could make a case that conclusions you could draw
it violated all 3 of the principles. from such a small number
of participants anyway.
u It violated respect for
persons because it failed u The study also comes up
to adequately inform lacking with regard to
families about what was the principle of justice,
actually going on. Instead, which considers whether
the researchers misled the the research is fair. Does
children and their adoptive it treat different people
parents into thinking equally, both in terms of
that the study was only sharing in the benefits
about the development of of the research and in
adopted children. So, to bearing the risks? In this
the extent that the families case, the risks were borne
gave consent, it certainly entirely by a particularly
wasn’t informed consent. vulnerable population,
namely adopted children
u The principle of and their families.
beneficence, which
requires that the risks of
a study are warranted

15 Although Dr. Neubauer never published a complete description of

the study and its results, he did write a book arguing that genetics
plays a major role in who we turn out to be, entitled Nature’s
Thumbprint: The New Genetics of Personality, which makes frequent
reference to the work done in the twin study in order to make
the case.

39
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

THE MONSTER STUDY

Wendell Johnson was one of But in 2001, the university
the most influential speech publicly apologized for that
pathologists in history. obscure thesis project. Two
In particular, his work on years later, some of the people
stuttering has had a profound who had been participants
effect on the field. He was a in the study sued the state of
professor in the Department Iowa for damages resulting
of Speech Pathology and from the study. And in 2007,
Audiology at the University they were awarded around $1
of Iowa and had helped to million as compensation. The
found the American Speech- popular press now typically
Language-Hearing Foundation. refers to it as the monster
study because some of the
One of the reasons Dr. Johnson children involved were treated
had an intense desire to in such a monstrous way.
understand stuttering and
to help those who suffered Dr. Johnson, who started
from it was because he stuttering when he was 5
suffered from a very severe or 6 years old, attributed
stutter as a child and young his speech problems to the
man. As he put it himself, “I fact that one of his teachers
became a speech pathologist told his parents that he was
because I needed one.” starting to stutter. He believed
that others’ concern about
Outside of speech pathology his speech made him self-
circles, Dr. Johnson is conscious and led him to focus
probably best known for a obsessively on how he spoke
highly criticized study that he in an effort to avoid stuttering.
conducted with his graduate
student Mary Tudor for her And far from preventing
master’s thesis in 1939. The him from stuttering, he
thesis was never published and thought that his obsessive
sat in the University of Iowa self-consciousness about
library for more than 60 years. his speech is actually what
made him stutter in the first

40
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

place. As he put it, “stuttering Tudor studied a total of 22

often begins not in the child’s orphans at the Iowa Soldiers’
mouth, but in the parent’s Orphans’ Home. The children
ear.” Most theories at the ranged in age from 5 to 16
time assumed that stuttering years old, and none of them
was due to a biological knew what the study was
abnormality that was primarily about. In fact, they probably
genetic. Johnson’s radical didn’t know they were in a
idea was that the diagnosis of study at all. They just thought
stuttering can actually cause they were getting therapy
the disorder. He referred to to help them speak better.
this as the diagnosogenic
theory of stuttering. Ten of the 22 kids were
children whom the teachers
In 1938, Dr. Johnson recruited at the orphanage identified
Tudor to carry out an as already being stutterers.
experiment to test his theory. For these children, Johnson
Specifically, they wanted to wanted to determine if giving
see if telling nonstuttering them positive feedback about
children that they are their speech might reduce
starting to stutter would their stuttering. Five of these
lead them to start stuttering. stutterers received positive
If so, it would validate his feedback about their speech
theory and undermine while the other 5 didn’t.
biological explanations.

41
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

Johnson and Tudor also These interruptions indicate

recruited 12 other children stuttering. You have many
who were not considered to of the symptoms of a child
be stutterers. Half of these who is beginning to stutter.
children were also randomly In fact, you are beginning to
assigned to a positive-feedback stutter. You must try to stop
group. The kids in this group yourself immediately.”
received feedback like the
following: “Do you enjoy This kind of negative feedback
speaking? You speak very well. made the children very
Your speech is of very good self-conscious about their
quality. Speak whenever you speech, and most of them
have an opportunity. You have became reluctant to talk.
the earmarks of a fine speaker.” About one of the children in
this group, Tudor wrote:
But the other nonstutterers
were assigned to a negative- It was very difficult to get
feedback group, and that’s her to speak although
where the most significant she spoke very freely
ethical concerns arise. the month before. She
Specifically, these 6 children, all spoke slowly and very
of whom were judged to speak distinctly, saying one
normally, were given negative word at a time. I asked
feedback about their speech her why she didn’t want
to determine if it would lead to to talk. She didn’t answer.
problems with speech fluency. Then I asked her if she
Tudor worked with each of was afraid of something.
these children every few weeks She nodded her head.
for about 45 minutes at a time. “What are you afraid of?”
After some time she said,
She told them things like the “Afraid I might stutter.”
following: “The staff has come
to the conclusion that you Another child in the negative-
have a great deal of trouble feedback group became
with your speech. The type withdrawn and ended up
of interruptions which you running away from the
have are very undesirable. orphanage a few years later,

42
 Lesson 3 Experimenting on Vulnerable Children

although it’s hard to know if that study therefore clearly

was related to the study or not. violates the Belmont
Decades later, when she was principle of beneficence—
reached by phone, she said, ‘‘I that is, minimizing risks
couldn’t never tell my husband while maximizing benefits.
about it. It just ruined my life.’’
u Respect for persons was
Although the kids in this also clearly violated. The
group became very self- children were not given
conscious and reluctant to appropriate respect as
speak, when they did speak, valuable human beings, and
they didn’t show much their extreme vulnerability
evidence of being more prone was not given appropriate
to stuttering, so the thesis consideration. Not only
didn’t provide much support were they children, but
for Johnson’s diagnosogenic they were orphans who
theory of stuttering. didn’t have parents to
watch out for them.
The ethical concerns with this
study are pretty obvious. u The very high risks of
the study were borne
u The risk of inducing entirely by the particularly
psychological damage vulnerable population of
seems very real. And one orphaned children. That’s
of the primary goals of the clearly unfair and is an
study was to try to induce obvious violation of the
stuttering in children. The Belmont principle of justice.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Neubauer and Neubauer, Nature’s Thumbprint.
Schein and Bernstein, Identical Strangers.
Tudor, “An Experimental Study of the Effect of
Evaluative Labeling of Speech Fluency.”
Wright, Twins.

43
 Table of
Contents

LESSON 4

TESTING
PSYCHOCHEMICAL
WEAPONS
T his lesson focuses on shocking
studies that were conducted by
government organizations like the
military and the CIA—organizations
that are supposed to serve the
public, not harm it. In particular,
it focuses on 3 men who were tied
together by a shocking secret: They
had been intentionally exposed to
powerful psychoactive drugs as
part of confidential experiments
that were investigating the
potential use of these drugs
as mind control weapons.

44
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

JAMES STANLEY
In the 1950s and 1960s, the US gases. But rather than using
military and the CIA were both deadly chemicals, he wanted
deeply involved in testing the to use drugs that temporarily
effects of a variety of different disrupted the enemy’s ability
psychoactive chemicals, to think and act rationally.
including LSD, mescaline,
psychedelic mushrooms, So Edgewood started a
PCP, ecstasy, and marijuana. research program to investigate
And they were conducting whether psychoactive drugs
these tests on human beings, were suitable to use as
most of whom had no idea weapons in psychochemical
what drugs they were being warfare. And that meant
exposed to. In fact, many of the Edgewood scientists needed to
human subjects weren’t even understand how human beings
aware that they were being reacted to these drugs so that
administered a drug at all. they could determine whether
the drugs would be effective
Some of these tests took place on a battlefield. They therefore
in Maryland at the Edgewood began to recruit soldiers
Arsenal facility, where L. Wilson through the Medical Research
Greene was the scientific Volunteer Program, which
director. He envisioned a offered soldiers the opportunity
new type of war that did not to be transferred to Edgewood
involve killing or destroying Arsenal temporarily and to
property.16 Essentially, Greene participate in their research.
thought it might be possible
to win battles by drugging
the enemy using chemical

16 As Greene put it, “Throughout recorded history, wars have been

characterized by death, human misery, and the destruction of
property; each major conflict being more catastrophic than the
one preceding it. I am convinced that it is possible, by means of the
techniques of psychochemical warfare, to conquer an enemy without
the wholesale killing of his people or the mass destruction of his
property.”

45
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

Advertisements went up The drug that showed

around the country promoting perhaps the most promise as a
the program, and thousands psychochemical weapon was
of soldiers volunteered. In called BZ, which can produce
addition to helping out their a variety of psychological
country, being transferred symptoms, including
to Edgewood meant they disorientation, agitation,
could get out of their normal tremor, and stupor. In extreme
duties. But the volunteers cases, it can even cause
didn’t really understand seizures and comatose states.
what the experiments at The scientists at Edgewood
Edgewood would involve. conducted a major field test to
determine whether clouds of
The scientists began testing BZ could be used effectively
the effects of a wide variety against soldiers who were more
of chemicals. One of the first than 1/4 mile away. This test was
drugs they tried was PCP, also code-named Project DORK.17
known as angel dust. Some
soldiers were given PCP and Other soldiers were repeatedly
asked to run an obstacle exposed to LSD to examine its
course. Others had the drug effects. One of those soldiers
surreptitiously put into a drink was James Stanley, who
to test the effects. But the arrived at Edgewood in 1958
researchers soon discovered expecting to test gas masks
that the effects of PCP could and protective clothing as part
be more serious and last of a study he signed up for
longer than they hoped. For because of an advertisement
example, one soldier had to he had seen. Instead, once a
be hospitalized for 6 weeks week, he was given a glass of
because he experienced a water to drink. And what he
very severe paranoid reaction didn’t know at the time was that
that lasted long after the the water was laced with LSD.
drug was out of his system.

17 A video of the event, titled Cloud of Confusion, was produced and

might still be on YouTube.

46
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

And that’s when he began fits of rage even after he left

to hallucinate and develop Edgewood. And ultimately
violent reactions, including those symptoms led to
assaulting 2 guards. And significant personal problems,
unfortunately, he continued including his divorce and
to experience hallucinations, estrangement from his family.
flashbacks, blackouts, and

47
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

Stanley was never told that he Supreme Court, but in 1987,

had been given LSD. In fact, it the court ruled against him in
wasn’t until 17 years later that a close 5-to-4 decision. The
he found out. And ironically, majority decision argued that
he learned the truth when soldiers cannot sue the military
he received a letter asking for injuries that are suffered as
him to participate in another part of their military service.
army-sponsored research
project. Specifically, the But after learning about
letter explained that the army Stanley’s case, a Florida
wanted to study the long-term congressman named Harry
effects of LSD on soldiers Johnston sponsored a bill to
who had been exposed to it compensate Stanley for his
at Edgewood! Only then did ordeal. And in 1996, nearly 40
Stanley realize what had really years after the Edgewood study,
happened to him back in 1958. the Palm Beach District Court
ruled that the experiment had
That realization led him to file altered Stanley’s personality
a lawsuit alleging negligence and had led to the decline
in the administration and of his military career and his
monitoring of the project. His first marriage. They awarded
case made it all the way to the him $400,577 in damages.

FRANK OLSON
The experiments at Edgewood were conducted as part of a
Arsenal had some very serious top-secret CIA project called
ethical problems, but it turns MK-Ultra, which started in 1953
out that there were other at the height of the Cold War
government-sponsored studies and continued for roughly 20
going on around the same time years. The CIA was concerned
that were arguably even worse. that the Soviet Union and
Many of these experiments their allies were developing

48
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

techniques to brainwash US Frank Olson was working for

prisoners of war in Korea. And the CIA on the MK-Ultra project
they wanted to make sure when, on November 18, 1953,
they didn’t get left behind. he and a group of fellow CIA
employees drove from Fort
It was in this context that the
director of the CIA at the
time, Allan Dulles, authorized
the MK-Ultra project. The
goal was to develop ways to
control human behavior, and
psychedelic drugs like LSD
seemed like one of the most
promising approaches.

The MK-Ultra project sponsored

more than 150 experiments that
were conducted all over North
America. In one particularly
egregious experiment, the CIA
hired sex workers to lure clients
into safe houses containing
one-way mirrors behind which
CIA scientists could observe.
The sex workers would
then give the unsuspecting
clients psychedelic drugs like Detrick in Frederick, Maryland,
LSD, typically without their to Deep Creek Lake on the
knowledge, and the scientists far western edge of the state
would observe the effect of for a retreat. At some point
the drug on their behavior. The during the retreat, Olson drank
victims were unlikely to report from a bottle of Cointreau that
the incident to law enforcement had been spiked with LSD.
or anyone else because they
wouldn’t want anyone to know Soon thereafter, Olson is
that they had hired a sex worker. said to have experienced
extreme paranoia and to have

49
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

suffered some kind of nervous wrote a lengthy article for The

breakdown. The CIA sent him to New York Times that described
New York City to be seen by Dr. numerous CIA abuses.
Harold Abramson, who wasn’t
a psychiatrist but an allergist Less than 2 weeks later,
and pediatrician who had been President Ford established
working with the CIA on their the President’s Commission
drug research. Specifically, Dr. on CIA Activities within the
Abramson was very interested United States, also known as
in the use of LSD in the the Rockefeller Commission,
treatment of mental illness.18 because it was led by then–Vice
President Nelson Rockefeller.
While Olson was in New York, The commission was charged
he fell to his death from the 13th with investigating activities of
floor of the Hotel Statler, across the CIA and other intelligence
the street from Penn Station. agencies. The US Senate and
He was staying in the room House quickly followed suit by
with a fellow employee when creating the Church Committee
it happened. His boss went and the Pike Committee, both
to Olson’s home in Frederick of which had similar mandates.
to break the news to his wife
and 3 young children. He told Although the CIA destroyed
them that Olson had been in many of the documents related
an accident and had either to their more questionable
fallen or jumped to his death. projects, these investigations
uncovered the MK-Ultra
Olson’s family had no idea project and the large number
that he had been exposed of CIA-sponsored experiments
to LSD a few days before his in which people had been
death. And they probably exposed to psychedelic drugs
would never have found out if without their consent. They also
it hadn’t been for a journalist reported the fact that Olson
named Seymour Hersh, who, had been exposed to LSD
in December 1974—more than without his knowledge before
20 years after Olson’s death— he died and suggested that

18 In fact, Dr. Abramson edited a book on the topic in 1967.

50
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

his death had been a suicide the second autopsy said that
due to an extreme reaction the evidence was “rankly
to the LSD. In response, the and starkly suggestive of
government gave Olson’s family homicide.” The family now
$750,000 as a settlement, and firmly believes that the CIA
both President Ford and CIA had Olson murdered because
director William Colby issued they viewed him as a serious
them formal apologies. security risk who could expose
what was actually happening
But the story didn’t end there. with the MK-Ultra project.

Olson’s wife died in 1993, Finally, in 2012, nearly 60

and the children decided to years after Olson’s death, his
have their father’s remains sons filed a lawsuit seeking
exhumed to be buried with compensatory damages and
his wife. They also decided to requesting access to CIA
have another, independent documents related to their
autopsy conducted. The new father’s death that they claimed
autopsy discovered a large were being withheld.19 The
hematoma on the left side case was dismissed, partly
of Olson’s head that had not because the family had
been reported in the original agreed to a settlement back
autopsy. It also reported a large in 1976. But in his decision,
injury on his chest. Most of the judge wrote this:
the autopsy team thought that
these injuries had occurred in While the court must
the hotel room before the fall. limit its analysis to the
four corners of the
Also, the original autopsy had complaint, the skeptical
reported cuts and abrasions reader may wish to know
on Olson’s body, but the that the public record
doctors who conducted the supports many of the
second autopsy saw no such allegations, farfetched
injuries. The doctor who led as they may sound.

19 If you’re interested in learning more about the Olson case, Netflix

produced a miniseries about it called Wormwood in 2017.

51
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

HAROLD BLAUER
Harold Blauer was a tennis pro Blauer remained in the institute
who gave lessons at the Hudson for about a month before
River Club in Manhattan. He he fell into a deep coma
was married with 2 daughters, and died. His ex-wife was
but in 1952, his marriage told that he had suffered an
fell apart and he fell into a atypical reaction to a drug.
depression. He decided to
check himself into Bellevue It turns out that the institute had
Hospital and was subsequently a secret agreement with the US
transferred to the New York Army Chemical Corps to test
State Psychiatric Institute, mescaline-based hallucinogenic
where he began therapy. drugs on patients. The goal of
the research was to “provide a
firmer basis for the utilization
of psycho-chemical agents
both for offensive use as
sabotage weapons and for
protection against them.”

As part of this research, Blauer

received injections of different
mescaline derivatives on 5
different days in December
1952 and January 1953. He was
very apprehensive about the
injections and once even lied
about having a cold to avoid
getting the shot but was given
the injection anyway. Afterward,
he explicitly told the doctors
that he didn’t want to get any
more shots, but they threatened
to send him to one of the less
pleasant mental asylums if he
withdrew. So he continued.

52
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

On January 8, he got his fifth Thirty minutes later, Blauer

injection. And this time, he was pronounced dead.
got a dose that was 16 times
larger than the first injection. The report to the medical
The last few entries in the examiner implied that the
study notes are chilling: drug was given for therapeutic
reasons and failed to
11:12 Increasing mention the experiment or
restlessness. its purpose. The medical
Intermittently examiner was also asked to
generalized rigidity. keep his report confidential.

11:17 No longer talking. The family didn’t find out what

Lapsing into coma. had really happened until the
Still restless. Rockefeller Commission, the
Church Committee, and the
Pike Committee raised public
11:30 Becoming cyanotic.
awareness about these kinds
Respiration rapid
and stertorous. of unethical experiments in
1975. The army finally admitted
the truth about what had
11:45 Quiet. Deep coma. happened, and 13 years later,
Blauer’s estate was awarded
$702,000 in damages.

ETHICAL QUESTIONS AND

CONCERNS
The cases of James Stanley, First, they highlight the critical
Frank Olson, and Harold Blauer need to obtain fully informed
obviously raise a host of ethical consent from all research
questions and concerns. participants before they get

53
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

involved in the research. u Likewise, most of the

This is a core component of people who were drugged
exhibiting appropriate respect as part of the CIA’s MK-
for persons—one of the Belmont Ultra project never gave
principles—and it was obviously their consent. In fact, many
violated in all of these cases. of them were completely
unaware that they were
u Stanley and the thousands being drugged. Olson
of other soldiers who were certainly didn’t expect
studied at Edgewood to get a dose of LSD
Arsenal were often never when he drank from
told what drugs they were that bottle of Cointreau
being exposed to, nor were at Deep Creek Lake.
they told what kinds of
symptoms to expect or the u Although Blauer agreed
potential risks. Many of the to be treated for his
soldiers who volunteered depression, he never gave
were under the impression his consent to be given
that they were going to be large doses of mescaline
testing out gas masks or derivatives simply to
clothing, not being exposed observe the effects. In
to psychoactive drugs. If fact, he explicitly asked for
they had truly known what the injections to stop but
they were getting into, was threatened to obtain
many of them likely would his cooperation. That’s a
not have volunteered in pretty obvious example
the first place. Also, it’s of coercion, which is
almost impossible to be antithetical to the principle
sure that soldiers like of respect for persons.
Stanley are participating
in a study of their own free In addition, all of these cases
will, as they’re trained to very clearly violate the Belmont
obey authority without principle of beneficence.
question or hesitation. Remember, according to
modern-day standards,
psychological studies should
always strive to maximize

54
 Lesson 4 Testing Psychochemical Weapons

benefits and minimize risks. participants to significant risks,

And at the very least, they the scientific benefits of the
should do no harm. But all studies were also questionable.
the studies in this lesson
clearly did significant harm Finally, consider the Belmont
to some of their participants. principle of justice. Was
Soldiers at Edgewood the research fair, or did it
experienced hallucinations, unfairly expose a subset of
paranoid delusions, and fits people to risk? The studies
of rage, and both Olson and at Edgewood pretty clearly
Blauer died as a result of violated the justice principle
the studies they were in. because they targeted
soldiers—and typically lower-
Furthermore, none of these ranking soldiers, a vulnerable
studies followed rigorous population in the military who
scientific methods, presumably don’t enjoy the privileges that
because they were overseen higher-ranking officers do.
by military personnel or The same concern applies to
government officials rather than experiments on psychiatric
by highly trained scientists. patients like Blauer who were
As a result, it’s hard to draw seeking help for their illness
strong scientific inferences and instead were subjected
from any of these studies. to untested and ultimately
So in addition to exposing very harmful procedures.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Albarelli, A Terrible Mistake.
Khatchadourian, “Operation Delirium.”
Moreno, Undue Risk.
Regis, The Biology of Doom.

55
 Table of
Contents

LESSON 5

ASSIGNING
GENDER AND
SPYING ON SEX
T his lesson features a few notorious
studies that investigated sexual
behavior and gender identity.
When studying sex and sexual
behavior—some of the most
private and sensitive aspects
of being human—scientists need
to be extra careful to protect
the rights of participants
and behave as ethically as
possible. Unfortunately, not all
scientists have done that.

56
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

THE TEAROOM TRADE STUDY

The Tearoom Trade study
was conducted by Laud
Humphreys for his PhD
dissertation at Washington
University in St. Louis in the
1960s. This study generated
substantial controversy after it
was published, and the ethics
of the study continue to be
debated to this day. But many
people also see Humphreys’s
research as groundbreaking
and view Humphreys as a hero.

One reason the study was

so controversial was that it
investigated a very sensitive
subject—specifically, the
practice of men going to public so despite the substantial
restrooms to have sex with risks. He therefore spent a
other men. Humphreys actually large amount of time in these
visited public restrooms, “tearooms,” as they were
observed men engaging in often called, and made careful
sex, and wrote up his findings. observations about what went
In addition, he conducted this on. He also interviewed many
study in the 1960s, when such of the men who participated
behavior was not only highly and learned as much as he
stigmatized, but was actually could about them, including
illegal and could lead to arrest their careers and personal
and even imprisonment. lives outside the tearooms.
What he found was startling.
Humphreys wanted to
understand who these men One surprising finding was
were who engaged in these the sheer volume of sex that
activities and why they did took place in the most active of

57
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

these restrooms. For example, And 38% did not consider

on one particularly busy themselves homosexual or
day, Humphreys observed even bisexual. Instead, they
20 sex acts in a single hour. identified as heterosexual and
He also regularly saw men viewed the tearooms simply
waiting in line to participate. as a quick and easy way to
get sexual satisfaction.
A second surprising finding was
that although the participants In fact, more than 50% of the
all obviously wanted sex, they men were married to women!
did not want intimacy. In fact, Their wives typically had no
they didn’t want any social idea about this aspect of
interaction at all. Humphreys their husbands’ lives, and the
found that in most of these men tried their best to keep
encounters, nothing was said.20 it that way. By all outward
Humphreys inferred that the appearances, these men
men who engage in this kind were entirely heterosexual.
of activity want it to be fast,
impersonal, and anonymous. The Tearoom Trade study
therefore demonstrated a
But by far the most surprising significant inconsistency
finding from the study was between the public and private
about the type of men who lives of most of these men.
frequented the tearooms. Many of them were actually
They came from all walks of quite conservative in public life,
life and all social classes. They both politically and socially.
included businessmen, gas Some were active members of
station attendants, physicians, churches and other religious
salesmen, and even a priest. organizations. Many publicly
denounced homosexuality
Only 14% of them were as sinful and were staunch
openly gay. Another 24% were opponents of gay rights.
homosexual but in the closet.

20 The single word “thanks” was occasionally spoken at the end of an

encounter, but even that only happened in a minority of interactions.

58
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

It would therefore be and private behavior can be

natural to view these men as radically different significantly
hypocrites. But that’s not the influenced theories of human
way Humphreys saw them. behavior in the field. The work
Based on his interactions with also led sociologists to adopt
them, he believed that many of methodologies that tried to
them were deeply ashamed of capture private behavior while
their behavior in the tearooms recognizing that it might be
and tried to make up for it very different from public
by trying to appear extra behavior. Humphreys’s research
righteous in their public life. also inspired a generation of
sociologists to study sexual
Humphreys's also concluded behavior using similar so-
that the behavior he observed called ethnographic methods.
in these tearooms did not
pose any threat to people in But as influential as Humphreys
the local community. Men and his research have been,
who entered these restrooms his methods have come under
simply to use the facilities were significant criticism for several
never approached for sex or reasons. First, many of the
harassed in any way. And the men had no idea that their
men who did participate were behavior was being observed
often among the most law- as part of a scientific study,
abiding citizens in the entire so they obviously never gave
community in public life. Based their consent. And that seems
on Humphreys’s findings, many like a clear violation of The
police departments began to Belmont Report’s respect
overlook what was happening for persons principle.
in the tearooms and devote
more of their resources to You might wonder why these
stopping crimes that they men let Humphreys observe
viewed as more dangerous. their behavior in the first place,
especially given that many of
The Tearoom Trade study also them were very concerned
had a profound influence on the about being exposed. They did
field of sociology. In particular, so because Humphreys misled
the recognition that public them about his true intent.

59
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

Specifically, he pretended to asked them about their family

be a voyeur who would serve and their career, among many
as a lookout in exchange for other topics. And that’s when
the opportunity to observe the he discovered that many of the
proceedings. He would watch men were married and strongly
the door and provide a warning identified as heterosexual.
signal if the police were in
the vicinity or if someone was Because Humphreys was
approaching the restroom. He worried that the men he
found that this was standard interviewed would recognize
practice in many tearooms, him, he waited about a
so by adopting this role, he year before conducting the
could avoid suspicion. interviews and changed his
appearance. None of the men
But Humphreys wanted to do reported recognizing him.
more than just observe the
behavior in the tearooms. He These tactics were roundly
wanted to learn more about the criticized. Some of the faculty
men who participated. And that members in Humphreys’s
led him to adopt a strategy that department sought to have his
most people consider the most doctoral degree rescinded.
unethical aspect of the study. The study also led to outrage
in the popular press.
He wrote down the license
plates of the cars that the On the other hand, some
tearoom participants drove and, people note the importance
with the help of some friends of the study and defend its
in the police force, figured out ethics. They point out that the
who the men were and where tearooms were public spaces
they lived. He then went to and that observing public
their homes and interviewed behavior does not typically
them under the pretense of require getting a person’s
conducting survey research. He consent. And that’s true to this

60
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

day.21 But observing sexual of the men he studied. He

behavior in a public restroom scrupulously protected their
that is being monitored by a identities and by all accounts
lookout seems pretty different did his best to make sure that
from watching people in a nothing he did would lead to
mall or at a football game. them being harmed in any way.
And as far as we know, none
Humphreys’s defenders also of the tearoom participants
point out that he tried very did experience any negative
hard to respect the privacy effects as a result of the study.

Humphreys’s writing suggests that he

strongly identified with many of his
research subjects and related well with
them. In fact, Humphreys himself came out
as a homosexual years after the study was
conducted.

THE JOHN/JOAN CASE

Bruce Reimer was born But the following spring,
on August 22, 1965, in their parents noticed that
Winnipeg, Manitoba, along their foreskins were closing
with his identical twin and that this was causing
brother, Brian. The boys were problems with urinating. This
both perfectly healthy. is a fairly common condition
called phimosis, which usually
resolves by age 3 even
without treatment. But in 1966,

21 Current regulations overseeing research on human beings do not

require scientists to obtain consent from people whose behavior is
being observed in a public space.

61
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

circumcision was a common The interview was with Dr.

treatment for phimosis, and John Money, a psychologist
that’s what the Reimers’ at Johns Hopkins who worked
doctor recommended. with people who had been
born with ambiguous sexual
So on April 27, 1966, Bruce organs—for example, girls
and Brian were scheduled who were born without a
for circumcisions. Bruce vaginal opening or boys with a
went first, but unfortunately, scrotum that was divided like
the procedure did not go labia and an extremely small
as planned. The urologist penis. These intersex people
used a technique called were sometimes raised as
electrocauterization that seals girls despite having male DNA
blood vessels while incisions and were sometimes raised
are made. But Bruce’s penis as boys despite having female
was essentially burned off DNA. And in studying these
during the procedure and cases, Money concluded that
could not be repaired. The it didn’t really matter which
doctors decided not to perform gender they were raised as.
the procedure on his brother, They seemed to do equally well
whose phimosis resolved on psychologically either way.
its own without treatment.
Money came to believe that
Bruce was seen by numerous people are born gender-
specialists, but none offered neutral and that they will
much encouragement.22 Bruce’s naturally adopt whichever
parents had given up hope that gender matches their physical
their son would ever be able attributes and their upbringing.
to have children or a normal He thought that if they have
sex life. But about 8 months penises and people treat
later, they saw an interview on them like boys, then they will
TV that changed their lives, naturally identify as boys. If they
and Bruce’s future, forever. have vaginas and people treat
them like girls, then they will

22 As one of them put it, “Insofar as the future outlook is concerned,

restoration of the penis as a functional organ is out of the question.”

62
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

identify as girls. And if they’re that Bruce undergo surgery.

intersex and have ambiguous And because a functional penis
sex organs, then they will could not be constructed,
identify with whichever gender Money suggested that Bruce’s
other people attribute to them, genitalia be made female and
although their ambiguous sex that he be raised as a girl rather
organs could potentially lead than as a boy. According to
to psychological conflict. Money’s theory, the child was
still gender-neutral at this age
Based on this hypothesis, and would readily accept his
Dr. Money recommended identity as a girl if his sex organs
that intersex babies receive were female and if those around
sexual reassignment surgery him treated him like a girl.
at an early age and that they
be treated as the reassigned Dr. Money undoubtedly
gender by everyone at all times. believed that these steps were
The goal was to remove any in the child’s best interest. He
doubts or conflicts in the child’s was hoping that once Bruce
mind about his or her gender. received the surgery and
was raised as a girl, he would
The Reimers decided to become a girl for all intents
seek out Dr. Money’s advice and purposes. And as a girl,
about Bruce’s situation. They she would not have to face the
wrote to him and described psychological trauma that might
what had happened to their be associated with growing up
son. He wrote back soon as a boy without a penis. Money
thereafter. And unlike all the also hoped that after she
other physicians that they reached adulthood, she would
had previously consulted, Dr. be able to enjoy a more typical
Money offered hope. He told sex life even if she wouldn’t
them that he was optimistic that be able to bear children.
he and the doctors at Johns
Hopkins would be able to help. But the case also provided
an extremely rare and very
So the Reimers brought the exciting opportunity for
twins to meet with Dr. Money Money to prove that his
in person. He recommended theories about gender identity

63
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

were right. After all, it could And it seems at least possible

provide the most convincing that these considerations could
evidence to date in favor of have clouded his judgment
Money’s theory that gender and biased the advice that
identity derived more from he gave to the Reimers. At
experience than from DNA. the very least, Money had a
vested interest in seeing the
Furthermore, as a scientific case Reimer child undergo sex
study, the case had a built-in reassignment and be raised
control condition—namely, the as a girl. And that’s what he
twin brother, Brian. Because strongly recommended.
he was an identical twin, Brian
shared the same DNA as After a few months of
Bruce. So if Brian adopted a thinking it over, that’s what
male identity while his sibling the Reimers decided to do.
adopted a female identity, it
would very strongly suggest So on July 3, 1967, when Bruce
that a person’s gender was was 22 months old, the surgical
malleable and was determined team at Hopkins removed his
by their upbringing rather testicles and did their best to
than by their genes, just as construct female genitalia.
Money’s theory claimed. His parents were told to raise
him as a girl and not to tell
The timing of the case couldn’t him or anyone else about
have been better for Money. the surgery in an attempt to
When the Reimer twins first avoid psychological conflicts
came to Johns Hopkins, his and emotional trauma.
theory was beginning to be
questioned in the scientific The Reimers began referring
literature. The Reimer case— to their child as Brenda rather
better known in the popular than Bruce and began using
press as the John/Joan case— the female pronouns she and
had the potential to vindicate her. And in every other way,
Money and take his scientific they tried their best to raise
career to another level. Brenda as a girl, including

64
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

dressing her in feminine clothes naked children and graphic

and giving her traditionally pornographic pictures of
female toys to play with. adults engaging in sex. He also
forced the twins to undress and
Dr. Money also asked the examine each other’s genitals
Reimers to bring the twins in front of him, sometimes
back to Johns Hopkins once with other observers in the
a year for counseling, which room. He even asked them to
they dutifully did. These visits simulate sex with each other,
gave Money an opportunity with Brian in the male role and
to interview the children Brenda in the female role.
without their parents present
and assess the extent to Money used his observations
which Brenda identified as a from these sessions as evidence
girl. Money also used these in scientific publications. In
private sessions to try to 1972, he published a book
reinforce her female identity. called Man & Woman, Boy
& Girl: Gender Identity from
Some of the things that Money Conception to Maturity that
asked about and asked the included a description of the
children to do were ethically Reimer case. And according
questionable, to say the least. to the book, the case clearly
He asked both children very supported Money’s theories.
detailed questions about their Brenda was described as
sexual fantasies and whether identifying as female, having
they fantasized about having typical feminine interests, and
sex with men or women. He behaving like most other girls.
showed them pictures of

Dr. Money’s goal was to do everything he

could to reinforce gender-specific ideas
about sexual anatomy and sexual behavior
for Brenda. He wanted to be sure that
Brenda thought of herself as a female in
every way possible.

65
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

Three years later, when the in his papers and books. As

twins were 9 years old, he her brother Brian put it, “I
published another report in recognized Brenda as my
which he claimed that Brenda sister, but she never, ever
was completely accepted as a acted the part.” He added:
girl by those around her and
that no one suspected that There was nothing
she had been born a boy.23 feminine about Brenda.
He also published a book … She walked like
called Sexual Signatures: On a guy …. She talked
Being a Man or a Woman that about guy things ….
described the Reimer case We both wanted to
as “dramatic proof that the play with guys, build
gender-identity option is open forts and have snowball
at birth for normal infants.” fights and play army.

These publications cemented At school, Brenda was the

Money’s position as the world target of constant ridicule and
expert on gender identity. derision by the other children
And the unqualified success because of her masculine
of the Reimer case also had mannerisms and behavior.
a major impact on medical Her teachers and other adults
practice. In particular, infant sex who worked with Brenda
reassignment surgery, which also noticed that she was
had been rare and had been different from the other girls.
performed almost exclusively
at Johns Hopkins, began to be And even though no one had
practiced all over the world. ever told her that she had been
born a boy, Brenda became
Unfortunately, the truth about increasingly uncomfortable
Brenda Reimer isn’t nearly with being treated as a girl.
as rosy as Money described She became convinced that
on the inside she was really

23 As Dr. Money put it, “No one knows. Nor would they ever conjecture.
Her behavior is so normally that of an active little girl, and so clearly
different by contrast from the boyish ways of her twin brother, that it
offers nothing to stimulate one’s conjectures.”

66
 Lesson 5 Assigning Gender and Spying on Sex

a boy and became more and that feeling like a boy wasn’t
more frustrated with having abnormal in any way because,
to comply with feminine social in reality, she was a boy.
norms. By the time Brenda
was 14, she simply refused Almost immediately, she
to continue the act. She decided to transition back to
stopped wearing feminine being male. He adopted the
clothing and sometimes name David and underwent
would urinate standing up. more sex reassignment
surgeries, but this time to make
The situation came to a head him more male rather than
when she went to see her more female. And he lived the
endocrinologist and refused rest of his life as a man. He
to submit to a breast exam. even ended up getting married
Seeing the obvious struggles and becoming the father of
that she was going through, children that his wife had
the doctor concluded that from previous relationships.
Brenda should be told the
truth. And soon thereafter, Unfortunately, this tragic
her father did just that. story also has a tragic ending.
In 2002, Brian died from an
After he explained everything overdose of antidepressants.
that had happened to her, And 2 years later, David died by
Brenda was obviously stunned suicide soon after his wife told
and angry. But most of all, him she wanted to separate.
she was relieved. She realized

SUGGESTED READINGS
Colapinto, As Nature Made Him.
Humphreys, Tearoom Trade.
Money and Ehrhardt, Man & Woman, Boy & Girl.

67
 Table of
Contents

LESSON 6

CURRENT AND
FUTURE ETHICAL
CHALLENGES
A lthough regulations have been
put in place that would prevent
countless shocking studies from
the past from being conducted
today, there are plenty of ethical
dilemmas that still arise in
psychological research. This
lesson addresses some of those
dilemmas and considers what can
be done to improve psychological
research in the future.

68
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

DIGITAL DATA AND PRIVACY

In the digital world we live in, u Furthermore, this kind of
information about basically research can be extremely
every aspect of human life is cost-effective. After all,
being captured every second the data has already been
of every day from hundreds collected. You therefore
of millions of human beings don’t have to pay an army
worldwide. And the availability of research assistants to
of these giant data sets creates recruit participants and
exciting opportunities for administer surveys.
psychological research.
On the other hand, this kind
u These data sets provide of research also poses new
an opportunity to observe ethical challenges that the field
human behavior “in the is only beginning to grapple
wild,” meaning you get to with. In particular, under what
see how people behave circumstances is it appropriate
when they don’t think their to analyze this kind of data?
behavior is being studied.
Obviously, people aren’t
always honest on Facebook
and Twitter, but these data
sets also include lots of
fairly objective data, such
as amount of physical
activity and GPS locations.

u Another advantage is
the enormous size and
diversity of the sample.
When you analyze data
from millions of people
from all over the world,
the results you obtain are
much more likely to be
reliable and generalizable.

69
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

Google processes something like 70,000 web

search requests every second, providing
insight into people’s interests and
thoughts. That corresponds to more than
2.2 trillion searches every year.

One view is that as long as general area where you live.

the data is not personally Likewise, your general age and
identifiable, then it’s fair your gender could probably
game. Current regulations be deciphered from the types
don’t actually consider the of products you buy. And
analysis of such secondary with a few more variables, the
data sets to be human subject possibilities could be narrowed
research if those data sets don’t down pretty quickly. And if
include personally identifiable you throw GPS data into the
information like names, social mix, then the identification
security numbers, and birth becomes almost trivially easy.
dates. So as long as that kind
of information is stripped, each Another viewpoint is that
person would just be a single researchers should only be
anonymous data point in a vast able to analyze data that is
sea of millions of others and publicly available. For example,
no one could figure out who depending on a user’s
each person is. Or could they? privacy settings, tweets and
Facebook posts may be out
When you have a data set there for the entire world to
that includes lots of different see. And many people would
variables, it is actually possible argue that such information
to figure out who individual is therefore also fair game
people are. For example, if you for researchers to analyze.
regularly visit the websites for
your local school district or city But one potential concern is
government, then someone that many users don’t actually
could probably figure out the understand the privacy settings

70
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

that Twitter, Facebook, and consent from every individual

other social media platforms whose data they plan to
have. Some of those people include in their analyses. That
might have actually preferred approach would obviously
to make their account private if provide the greatest protection
they had really understood the to the research participants,
implications of being public and but it would also make it
had known how to change the impossible to carry out many
settings. But there’s no way to of the studies that researchers
know who those people are. would like to conduct.

The strictest viewpoint would These issues will

be to require that scientists undoubtedly continue to
obtain explicit informed be debated in the future.

INTENTIONAL RESEARCH
MISCONDUCT
Another ethical dilemma in experiment providing evidence
modern-day psychological that people are more racist in
research involves intentional messy environments than they
research misconduct by are in clean environments.
unethical scientists. And Based on their results, Stapel
the psychologist who is and his coauthor argued that
perhaps most notorious people use racist stereotyping
for such misconduct is a as a kind of mental cleaning
Dutch social psychologist device when they are exposed
named Diederik Stapel. to chaos in their environment.

In 2011, Stapel published a Science is arguably the most

highly publicized article in prestigious scientific journal
Science that described an in the world. It only publishes

71
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

a tiny fraction of all the papers students. You might wonder

that scientists send in for how that could possibly
consideration, so the journal’s happen. Wouldn’t his coauthors
reviewers have to be convinced see what was going on?
that a paper makes a truly
groundbreaking contribution To avoid this, Stapel would
for it to be published. And design a fictional experiment
Stapel’s paper passed that bar. and then fabricate a data set
with results that were consistent
But it turns out that the with a particular hypothesis.
experiment he described in that He then contacted social
paper had never actually been psychologists whose work
done. He made up data that was related to the fictional
were consistent with his racism- experiment and told them
as-mental-cleaning hypothesis that he had a data set that
and then wrote the article had not yet been analyzed.
based on the fabricated data. He asked if they would be
interested in collaborating to
Unfortunately, it wasn’t the first analyze the data and write it
time Stapel had done this. In up for publication. And many
fact, 58 of his articles had to of these scientists said yes.
be retracted from the scientific
literature based on concerns This house of cards came
over the validity of his data. And tumbling down in 2011, soon
virtually all of these papers were after the paper in Science was
written with other scientists, published. Three of Stapel’s
including Stapel’s own graduate junior colleagues had become

The case of Diederik Stapel is extreme,

but he’s not alone. For example, in
2011, the extremely prominent Harvard
psychologist Marc Hauser resigned after
an investigation found evidence that
he had fabricated and falsified data in
numerous studies investigating animal
cognition.

72
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

suspicious about many of his lost his job and any chance at
results. All of his experiments continuing his research career.
seemed to work, and the The official reports confirmed
data were always extremely that his colleagues and students
convincing. That’s just not were completely unaware
how science works in practice. of the fraud and cleared
Lots of plausible, intriguing them of any wrongdoing.
hypotheses turn out to be Nevertheless, many of their
wrong. And experimental data papers had to be retracted,
is often messy and ambiguous. so the ordeal significantly
damaged their careers.24
So these colleagues began
covertly observing him. And
that’s when they discovered
the truth. For example,
after loading up his car with
questionnaires that he said
he was going to administer to
students in a nearby town, they
saw him drive off and dump
the questionnaires into a trash
bin. Nevertheless, a few weeks
later, another beautiful data set
showed up confirming whatever
hypothesis the questionnaires
were designed to test.

Once these colleagues were

convinced, they reported
him. Panels were convened to
investigate the charges, and the
truth came out—and Stapel’s
story made headlines. He

24 Stapel’s students were hit particularly hard. Imagine trying to get a

job as a scientist when most of the experiments you worked on were
never actually performed.

73
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

PSYCHOLOGY’S REPLICATION
CRISIS
There have been a few recent The results were shocking in
psychological studies that are a few ways. First, the size of
shocking not because they the effects observed in the
were unethical, but because replication attempts were much
they suggest that many of smaller than the effects that had
the published findings in the been reported in the original
psychological literature are not studies. In fact, on average, the
as reliable as once thought. effect sizes were only 1/2 as big
as originally reported. Worse
One of these studies was yet, only 36% of the replications
published in August 2015 produced statistically
by the Open Science significant results, whereas 97%
Collaboration, which consisted of the original studies had.
of 270 scientists from all over
the world who agreed to try to In 2018, another study was
replicate studies that had been published that made a similar
published in 3 very respected attempt to replicate 21 social
psychology journals in 2008.25 science studies that had
The teams managed to rerun been published in the 2 most
100 different psychological prestigious general science
studies, and they did their journals: Nature and Science.
best to run those studies in the This study tested about 5 times
same way they had originally as many participants as the
been run, including using the original studies had in order
original materials if they were to make sure that there was
available and consulting with sufficient statistical power to
some of the original authors observe effects, even if those
to make sure their study was effects were small. Despite
appropriately designed. these efforts, the scientists
were unable to replicate the

25 Ironically, the study was published in Science, the same journal

where Diederik Stapel had published his fictional racism study.

74
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

published findings from 8 of same 13 studies. They then

the 21 studies. And like the combined results from all the
Open Science Collaboration teams to produce well-powered
project, the size of the effects replication attempts with
in the replication studies more than 6000 participants.
were, on average, about Ten of the 13 studies
1/2 as big as they had been replicated, but 3 did not.
in the original papers.
The take-home message is
The Many Labs project has also clear: Psychology has a serious
conducted similar replication replication crisis. Many of the
studies, but rather than published findings that we
conducting a single replication assumed were well established
of many studies, this project actually aren’t. The problem
has attempted to conduct many is particularly severe in social
replications of a few studies. psychology, but it extends
There have actually been to other parts of the field. In
several Many Labs projects, all fact, the problem extends
with this same goal. In Many to many other scientific
Labs 1, published in 2014, fields, including biology,
36 different research teams genetics, and medicine.
around the world reran the

FLAWS IN CURRENT SCIENTIFIC

PRACTICE
The replication crisis suggests First, the standard approach
that there are some flaws in to determining whether an
current scientific practice empirical result is statistically
that need to be addressed. significant has some problems.
Scientific experiments typically
test whether changing

75
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

one variable, called the Fahrenheit, you wouldn’t

independent variable, has be surprised to learn that it
a significant effect on an was actually 98.6° or 98.8°.
outcome variable, called And the same thermometer
the dependent variable. could give a slightly different
reading tomorrow due to
In Stapel’s fictional study, the other factors, such as the
independent variable was the temperature of the air or slight
cleanliness of the environment differences in the way you
and the dependent variable took your temperature or even
was a measure of racist in the thermometer itself.
behavior—specifically, how
far away white participants That’s called measurement
sat from African Americans. error, and it’s present in
He made up data suggesting every scientific experiment.
that white participants sat But that raises a problem.
significantly farther away from
African Americans when the Suppose you run an experiment
surrounding environment was and find that changing your
messy compared with when independent variable leads to
it was clean. In other words, a change in your dependent
changing the independent variable. What caused the
variable of messiness was change? The hope is that it
claimed to have a significant was your manipulation of the
effect on the dependent independent variable. For
variable, which was how far example, maybe changing
away people sat from others. from a clean to a messy
environment really does make
But what constitutes a white people sit farther away
significant effect? from African Americans.

The traditional approach is But another possibility is that

to try to assess the reliability the observed effect is just due
of the effect. After all, no to measurement error. So how
measurement is perfect. If a do you tell the difference?
thermometer says that your
body temperature is 98.7°

76
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

Most studies use an approach that never get published,

called null hypothesis because they didn’t produce
significance testing. First, you a large enough effect to reject
look at how big of an effect the null hypothesis using that
manipulating the independent 5% criterion. And if you can’t
variable had on the dependent reject the null hypothesis of
variable in your experiment. no effect, then it’s hard to
For example, how much farther convince other scientists that
away did people sit when your results provide convincing
the environment was messy evidence for or against any
compared with when it was scientific hypothesis.
clean? If they sat a lot farther
away, then that would be a big On the other hand, if you run an
effect size. But if they only sat experiment and the probability
a little farther away, then that of getting the observed effect
would be a small effect size. is less than 5% under the null
Obviously, big effect sizes hypothesis, then you almost
are much more convincing. always publish it. In that case,
you’ve passed the conventional
So what’s the probability that bar that scientists have implicitly
you would get an effect of the agreed on, so it’s natural to
size you observed, assuming write it up and send it off to a
that your independent variable scientific journal so that other
isn’t related to your dependent scientists can read about it.
variable? If that probability
is very low—less than 5%— But using that 5% criterion
then you reject the so-called means that up to one out
null hypothesis of no effect. of 20 studies will produce a
And instead, you accept the significant effect even when
alternative hypothesis that the null hypothesis is true and
the independent variable nothing is going on. So if you
did have an effect on the tested the same hypothesis
dependent variable. over and over again in multiple
experiments, occasionally
But the problem is that you might get results that
scientists all over the world allow you to reject the null
conduct lots of experiments

77
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

hypothesis just because of So null hypothesis significance

measurement error, even if testing combined with the
the null hypothesis is true. practice of rarely publishing
null results is one important
That wouldn’t be such a factor contributing to
problem if each experiment the replication crisis.
was only done once. But
there are scientists all over Another factor is the use
the world who are studying of questionable research
the same topics and trying to practices by some scientists.
test very similar hypotheses,
so similar experiments get The phrase “publish or
done all the time. And if any perish” refers to the idea that
of those experiments produce if academics don’t regularly
an effect that is large enough publish books and papers,
to reject the null hypothesis, then they will inevitably perish
then it’s likely to be published. professionally. In particular,
there’s a lot of truth to this idea
Dozens of other labs around for scientists at major research
the world may have previously universities. The number of
run a very similar experiment papers that you publish, and
and failed to find significant the number of times those
effects, but those experiments papers are cited, plays a major
were likely never published. role in determining whether
So the scientific literature you’ll be able to get a faculty
would only include the job, whether you’ll get a grant
one study that actually did to support your research,
produce a significant effect. and what kind of raise you’ll
get at the end of the year.
The result is a significant bias
in the scientific literature, with There is therefore substantial
a significant percentage of pressure to publish scientific
published results that aren’t articles—particularly articles that
actually reliable. And that’s make a splash. And when that
exactly what the projects that pressure becomes too severe,
have attempted to replicate some scientists cut corners.
existing studies have found. While some scientists, such as

78
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

Stapel, flat-out make up data, had a computer generate

there are much subtler practices random data in which they
that can bias results and knew that the null hypothesis
artificially increase the chances was true, so there definitely was
of rejecting the null hypothesis. no real effect. Nevertheless,
when they adopted the
For example, you could analyze questionable research practices
your data in many different just described, they were
ways and choose the method able to produce a result that
that produces the largest passed the 5% threshold
effect size. You could reanalyze more than 60% of the time!
your data set after every
participant you test and stop Fortunately, there are ways
immediately if you happen to that scientists can overcome
achieve statistical significance. these problems and ensure
that future published results
You could also collect data are solid and replicable.
on a whole bunch of different
variables and then test if the Perhaps the most promising
relationship between any pair approach is for studies to be
of variables passes the 5% reviewed before any data is
threshold, and then you could collected. Here’s the idea:
just report that relationship as if When scientists have an idea
it were your original hypothesis. for an experiment, they write
If you perform enough tests, up their idea before they do
there’s a good chance that any data collection. Then,
one of them will pass the they send the description of
5% threshold even if the null their proposed experiment
hypothesis is actually true. to a scientific journal to be
considered for publication.
In 2011, Joseph Simmons and Other scientists who are
colleagues at the University experts in the field then review
of Pennsylvania published a the proposal and evaluate
paper in which they tested how whether the proposed study is
these kinds of questionable solid. If the reviewers decide
research practices can affect that it is, then the scientists
scientific results. First, they would conduct the study,

79
 Lesson 6 Current and Future Ethical Challenges

and the scientific journal reviewers point out can be

would agree to publish the fixed before the study is ever
paper whether the results conducted. It also eliminates
turn out to be statistically the problem that only
significant or not. The only statistically significant results
condition would be that the are published and therefore
scientists have to conduct reduces publication bias.
the study exactly as they Finally, it would significantly
described in their proposal. reduce the opportunity
for scientists to engage in
This model has several questionable research practices
advantages. First, it likely leads because they have to commit to
to better-designed studies what they’re going to do before
because design problems that they ever conduct the study.

Although bad science does get

done, it often gets exposed and
corrected. Scientific ethics are
discussed, evaluated, implemented,
and refined.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Bhattacharjee, “The Mind of a Con Man.”
Borgman, Big Data, Little Data, No Data.
Chambers, The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology.
Stephens-Davidowitz, Everybody Lies.

80
 MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUIZ

1. What was the goal of the Facebook emotional

contagion study?

a. To determine if using Facebook improves a

person’s mood
b. To determine if using Facebook makes a
person’s mood worse
c. To determine if emotions can spread via
social media
d. To determine if Facebook can be used to
treat emotional problems

2. What was the goal of the Tuskegee syphilis study?

a. To study the long-term effects of untreated

syphilis on the body
b. To determine whether penicillin is an
effective treatment for syphilis
c. To determine how syphilis spreads
d. To determine why syphilis was more
common in Tuskegee than in other parts of
Alabama

Table of
Contents

81
 Multiple-Choice Quiz

3. Requiring that psychologists obtain informed consent is

most related to which of the Belmont principles?

a. Respect for persons

b. Beneficence
c. Justice
d. Kindness

4. Which of the following ethical considerations is most

related to the Belmont principle of beneficence?

a. Recruit participants fairly.

b. Do not coerce people to participate.
c. Respect the rights of vulnerable
populations.
d. Do no harm.

5. Who wrote The Belmont Report?

a. Peter Buxtun
b. Ted Kennedy
c. The National Commission for the
Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research
d. The Public Health Service

82
 Multiple-Choice Quiz

6. What was the main conclusion of the Milgram

obedience study?

a. People are inherently evil.

b. People are inherently good.
c. Ordinary people will typically not obey
orders that they find unethical.
d. Ordinary people will typically obey orders
even if they find them unethical.

7. Which of the following statements about the Stanford

Prison Experiment is false?

a. The guards began to act sadistically.

b. Dr. Zimbardo played the role of prison
superintendent.
c. Once it was obvious that the prisoners
were suffering, the experiment was
stopped immediately.
d. The experiment was conducted in the
Stanford Psychology Building rather than in
a real prison.

83
 Multiple-Choice Quiz

8. Which of the following statements about the Neubauer

twin study is true?

a. In 2019, the records from the study all

became publicly available.
b. When they were children, the twins did not
know that they had a biological sibling.
c. The goal of the study was to determine if
separating twins at birth was harmful.
d. The study provided conclusive evidence
that personality depends more on
environment than on genetics.

9. The so-called monster study investigated which of the

following?

a. The causes of stuttering

b. The psychological consequences of
physical deformity
c. Why ordinary people act in evil ways
d. The role of nature versus nurture in
shaping personality

10. On whom was the monster study conducted?

a. People who were disfigured

b. Orphans
c. Twins
d. Adopted children

84
 Multiple-Choice Quiz

11. Which of the following men was given psychoactive

drugs at Edgewood Arsenal?

a. Harold Blauer
b. Frank Olson
c. James Stanley
d. Ewen Cameron

12. Which of the following organizations did Frank Olson

work for?

a. The US Army
b. The Department of Defense
c. The NSA
d. The CIA

13. What was the goal of the MK-Ultra project?

a. To explore the use of psychoactive drugs

for use in mind control
b. To test the effectiveness of gas masks
c. To study extrasensory perception
d. To gather scientific evidence for or against
telepathy

85
 Multiple-Choice Quiz

14. Harold Blauer was experimented on while doing what?

a. Being treated for syphilis

b. Being treated for depression
c. Working for the CIA
d. Serving as a soldier

15. The Tearoom Trade study investigated which of the

following?

a. Sex in public restrooms

b. Behavior in restaurants
c. Cultural differences in what is
considered polite
d. How people negotiate

16. Which of the following statements about the Tearoom

Trade study is true?

a. Most of the participants were openly gay.

b. Most of the participants were aware that
their behavior was being studied.
c. The researcher used license plate
numbers to track down the participants for
interviews.
d. The researcher obtained informed consent
before conducting the observations.

86
 Multiple-Choice Quiz

17. Which of the following statements about the Bruce/

Brenda Reimer case is false?

a. Dr. Money recommended that the child be

raised as a girl.
b. The child’s parents did their best to raise
the child as a girl.
c. Dr. Money believed that children are born
gender-neutral.
d. Friends and teachers thought that the child
acted like a typical girl.

18. Lesson 6 discussed 3 advantages of analyzing the

enormous data sets produced by social media, web
search engines, and smartphone apps. Which of
the following is not one of the advantages that was
addressed?

a. People in these data sets have all already

consented
b. The opportunity to study psychological
behavior “in the wild”
c. The enormous size and diversity of
the sample
d. The cost-effectiveness of analyzing an
existing data set

87
 Multiple-Choice Quiz

19. How were Diederik Stapel’s unethical practices

exposed?

a. He told some friends about it and they

turned him in.
b. Some of his junior colleagues followed
him and observed him throwing out
questionnaires that he claimed to be using
for data collection.
c. Reviewers identified unethical practices in
one of his papers.
d. Other scientists repeatedly failed to
replicate his findings and called him out.

20. A number of attempts to replicate published

psychological results have found that which of the
following is true?

a. Roughly 1/2 of published results don’t

replicate.
b. Almost all published results are very
reliable.
c. Studies that don’t replicate were almost
always conducted unethically.
d. Scientists are more likely to publish null
results than significant results.

12. D, 13. A, 14. B, 15. A, 16. C, 17. D, 18. A, 19. B, 20. A

1. C, 2. A, 3. A, 4. D, 5. C, 6. D, 7. C, 8. B, 9. A, 10. B, 11. C,
Answer Key

88
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adjerid, Idris, and Ken Kelley. “Big Data in Psychology:
A Framework for Research Advancement.” The
American Psychologist 73, no. 7 (2018): 899–917.
doi:10.1037/amp0000190.

Albarelli, H. P. A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank

Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments.
Waterville, OR: Trine Day, 2009.

Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. “The Mind of a Con Man.” The

New York Times Magazine, April 26, 2013. https://www.
nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-
audacious-academic-fraud.html?ref=magazine.

Borgman, Christine L. Big Data, Little Data, No Data:

Scholarship in the Networked World. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2015.

Chambers, Chris. The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology:

A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific
Practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.

Colapinto, John. As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who

Was Raised as a Girl. New York: HarperCollins, 2000.

Humphreys, Laud. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in

Public Places. Chicago: Aldine, 1970.

Jones, James H. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis

Experiment. New York: Free Press, 1993.

Khatchadourian, Raffi. “Operation Delirium.” The New

Yorker 88, no. 40 (December 17, 2012).

89
 Bibliography

Kramer, Adam D. I., Jamie E. Guillory, and Jeffrey T.

Hancock. “Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale
Emotional Contagion through Social Networks.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111,
no. 24 (June 17, 2014): 8788–8790. https://www.pnas.
org/content/pnas/111/24/8788.full.pdf.

Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority. London:

Pinter & Martin, 2010.

Money, John, and Anke A. Ehrhardt. Man & Woman,

Boy & Girl: Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity.
Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996.

Moreno, Jonathan D. Undue Risk: Secret State

Experiments on Humans. London: Routledge, 2016.

National Commission for the Protection of Human

Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The
Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for
the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. 1979.
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-
belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf.

Neubauer, Peter B., and Alexander Neubauer. Nature’s

Thumbprint: The New Genetics of Personality. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Oatley, Keith. Our Minds, Our Selves: A Brief History

of Psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2018.

Regis, Edward. The Biology of Doom: America’s

Secret Germ Warfare Project. New York: Henry Holt,
1999.

90
 Bibliography

Reverby, Susan M. Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous

Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. Chapel Hill: The University
of North Carolina Press, 2009.

Schein, Alyse, and Paula Bernstein. Identical Strangers:

A Memoir of Twins Separated and Reunited. New York:
Random House, 2008.

Stephens-Davidowitz, Seth. Everybody Lies: What the

Internet Can Tell Us about Who We Really Are. London:
Bloomsbury, 2017.

Tudor, Mary. “An Experimental Study of the Effect of

Evaluative Labeling of Speech Fluency.” Master’s thesis,
State University of Iowa, 1939. https://doi.org/10.17077/
etd.9z9lxfgn.

Wright, Lawrence. Twins: And What They Tell Us about

Who We Are. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997.

Zimbardo, Philip. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How

Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House, 2013.

Image Credits
Page 5 Dem10/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Page 7 Tero Vesalainen/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Page 11 CSA Images/Vetta/Getty Images Plus
Page 21 Yoingco34/Fiverr.com
Page 27 catavic/Fiverr.com
Page 28 catavic/Fiverr.com
Page 29 Rattankun Thongbun/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Page 34 JurgaR/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Page 41 maratam/Fiverr.com
Page 47 Sidharth Ojha/www.instagram.com/sidharthojha
Page 49 Sidharth Ojha/www.instagram.com/sidharthojha
Page 52 Sidharth Ojha/www.instagram.com/sidharthojha
Page 57 Meinzahn/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Page 69 Andreus/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Page 73 Melpomenem/iStock/Getty Images Plus

91