Martin Seligman preformed an experiment on dogs by using conditioning to deny predictability. The result was what we call learned helplessness (Nemade, Reiss, & Dombreck, 2007), and can be seen in victims of abuse. Through this experiment, we have witnessed the value of predictability and the power/control we gain from it is insurmountable, but was the experiment necessary? Did we really need to torture dogs to prove a point? No, we did not. But what we really did not need to do was endorse Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiment. The premise of his research was based on loads of horrible evidence that we can thank Hitler for. Of course no one was physically harmed in this study, unlike the animal torture in Seligman’s, but there was near equal potential for psychological harm as was witnessed in Zimbardo’s. 

 

So would it be better if these studies had never been done? I think it would be better for the participants, and we certainly would not be worse off without them. We can learn just as much (if not more) from being aware of what takes place around us. Is research important? Absolutely! But the risk/benefit ratio question stands: Will we be better off from the knowledge gained than we were from the lack of it? Sometimes, the answer really is no. 

1.    “A statement that the study involves research, an explanation of the purposes of the research and the expected duration of the subject's participation, a description of the procedures to be followed, and identification of any products which are experimental.

2.    A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject.

3.    A description of any benefits to the subject or to others which may reasonably be expected from the research.

4.    A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject.

5.    A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained and that notes the possibility that external regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, may inspect the records.

6.    For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any compensation and/or medical treatments are available if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained.

7.    An explanation of whom to contact for answers to pertinent questions about the research and research subjects' rights, and whom to contact in the event of a research-related injury to the subject. 

8.    A statement that participation is voluntary, that refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and that the subject may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled” (UCI, 2015).

 

There is not a clear definition of what the study will entail. There are stipulations to being released from the study, deny the volunteer the right to remove him or herself at will. The benefits awarded to the subject are not defined, at all. There was nothing explaining the possible discomforts of the study. And the purpose was unclear. 

 

The information was presented as though there were not people participating, but rather, subjects. This prospective stripped away humanity and replaced it with inanimate puzzle pieces, removing what would otherwise serve as a moral compass, stopping the torture than ensued. So what started as an improve scenario, quickly became role confusion, which lead to what might be considered a learned helplessness in the inmate group. 

 

•   Was it right to trade the suffering experienced by participants for the knowledge gained by the research? (The experimenters did not take this issue lightly, although the Slide Show may sound somewhat matter-of-fact about the events and experiences that occurred).

 

The was not minimal risk to the participants, and the consequences did not outweigh the benefits. 

 

“Risk is defined as the probability of physical, psychological, social, or economic harm occurring as a result of participation in a research study” (Korenman, 2006). 

 

“Minimal risk exists where the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the proposed research are not greater, in and of themselves, than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests” (Korenman, 2006). 

              

“Benefit applies to the potential of the research treatment to ameliorate a condition or treat a disease” (Korenman, 2006). 

 

So was it “right” to trade suffering for knowledge gained? I think a great bit of attention has been paid to this study itself, but  most of that attention was related to the controversy surrounding it, and not the product of it.     

humans. University of California Regents. Retrieved from: http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ucla/chapter3/page01.htm

  

McLeod, S. (2008). Erik erikson. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from: 

http://www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html  

 

Nemade, R., Reiss, N. S., & Dombeck, M. (2007). Cognitive theories of major depression – seligman. MentalHelp.net. Retrieved from: 

https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/cognitive-theories-of-major-depression-seligman/

 

UCI. (2015). Required elements of informed consent. UCI Office of Research.

Retrieved from: http://www.research.uci.edu/compliance/human-research-protections/irb-members/required-elements-of-informed-consent.html