The very reason Ethical guidelines were put into place by the BPS is to ensure the mental and physical safety of people. Without it researchers would have no structure to follow and fit their research around, and would quite frankly have no boundaries placed on them, which they may interpret as a pass to do just about anything. This may lead to many terrible forms of research, for example the medical research done on victims of the holocaust during the WWII. Some of these experiments included bone, muscle and nerve transplants on live people without the use of pain killers, freezing experiments and also experiments with poison. If things like this can be prevented through the use of ethical guidelines then it surely must be a good thing.
But on the other hand, these guidelines may restrict certain pieces of research from taking place, and some of which may even lead to ground breaking discoveries. Many psychologists may argue that sometimes if breaking a few rules can benefit humanity in the long run, provided no permanent damage is induced on the participant, this should be seen as a good thing. Certain investigations also wouldn’t have taken place if it wasn’t for breaking a couple of these rules for example Milgrams study, where he deceived the participants into thinking that the research measured how punishments can affect learning. This was effective in observing and measuring the participants ‘true’ behaviour, which in this case was a measure of obedience. If however the participants were told the true nature of the experiment, they may try to portray themselves in a way they think is expected from them i.e. social desirability bias.
But where do we draw the line? If a couple of these rules were allowed to be broken, who knows how many others may be broken, and how many participants may be hurt. It may seem completely harmless at first to bend a few rules, as long as no ones permanently damaged, but this would inevitably lead to a slippery slope. So this should definitely be taken into consideration.
Some people may argue that most physiologists are skilled enough to break a few of these rules but still protect people, and they can ensure permanent damage isn’t induced. They may also argue that any stress or mental strain can be removed after the experiment, through counselling. In addition other colleagues could look into the experiment and ensure the participant isn’t going through unnecessary pain. But I personally think this is a weak argument, and like I mentioned above if we allowed some rules to be broken it would be hard to draw the line.
In conclusion, when it comes to ethical guidelines before the thought of breaking one even arises, every other alternative should be explored, and only then should one be broken. The researcher should also make certain that the research wouldn’t cause any permanent damage, and also if the research is truly necessary in understanding human behaviour. But the boundaries being there is really important because without it researchers would be able to do anything. Even if the ethical guidelines aren’t followed to the letter, just the presence of them will hopefully make psychologists at least consider them, and try to think of alternatives based on what their research requires.
