[michaelhoffman]

Howdy Paul!

I definitely see a problem in that some people think that if the IRB doesn't object to what they're doing, it's OK. But ethics is a responsibility of the entire research team, and the research team is usually far better placed to understand the implications of their research strategy than the IRB.

The following are big problems here:

  - lack of informed consent
  - deception

Researchers should be trained that those are only allowed in exceptional cases where the benefits outweigh the harms.

[gpm]

I feel like "coercion" (legal threats) should probably be a separate bullet point from "deception"?

[michaelhoffman]

Well if you have informed consent, it's not going to be a problem. If you don't, then you need to do a more careful analysis of ill effects might ensue when someone gets the letter (feel distress, spend money on a lawyer).

[zajio1am]

Aren't these issues common in many other societal studies, for example fake resume hiring studies?

[DannyBee]

Yes.

IRB's exist, in part, to weight the cost to the humans/etc vs the possible benefit of the study.

Take: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21560/w215...

Look at footnote 3.

There is often a tendency to dehumanize things when it involves sending stuff to corporations. Even in that footnote, it's not employers processing fictious resumes, it's people.

So it's much more likely you'd get approval to do something "to a corporation" even though 99% of the time, it's really still being done to humans