Informed Consent in Social Science

Abstract

In his Perspective “ Homo experimentalis evolves” (11 July, p. [207][1]), J. A. List proudly acknowledges that economists perform experiments on human subjects without notifying them: “[I]n a natural field experiment, the analyst manipulates experimental conditions in a natural manner, whereby the experimental subjects are unaware that they are participating in an experiment. This approach combines the most attractive elements of the laboratory and of naturally occurring data: randomization and realism.” I know that psychologists tend to do the same thing. Yet this practice leads me to ask: Where has “informed consent” gone? ![Figure][2] Balancing act. Social scientists must walk a fine line in determining when a study's potential for public good justifies a relaxation of informed consent requirements. CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES # Response {#article-title-2} As my Perspective made clear, there are several types of field experiments. In some, subjects are made aware that they are taking part in an experiment and sign consent forms in the spirit of the guidelines of the Nuremberg code. There are, however, certain cases in which adhering to rigid ethical rules can affect the very issue that is being studied, such that it becomes quite difficult to conduct the research ([1][3], [2][4]). For example, if one were interested in exploring whether, and to what extent, race or gender influences the prices that buyers pay for used cars, it would be difficult to measure accurately the degree of discrimination among used car dealers who know that they are taking part in an experiment. For such purposes, it makes sense to consider executing a natural field experiment. This does not suggest that moral principles should be altogether abandoned in the pursuit of science. Quite the opposite: The researcher must weigh whether the research will inflict harm, gauge the extent to which the research benefits others, and determine whether experimental subjects chose the experimental environment of their own volition and are treated justly in the experiment. Local Research Ethics Committees and Institutional Review Boards in the United States serve an important role in monitoring such activities. Consider the natural field experiment that was discussed in my 11 July Perspective. In this experiment, a coauthor and I worked with a national fundraiser to explore various methods that fundraisers might wish to implement to be able to provide more of the public good. During the research, we never learned the solicitees' names, solicitees received letters similar to the ones they were sent in the normal course of their lives, and they made charitable donation decisions in a natural manner. In the end, we learned something interesting about the economics of charity while doing no harm to the solicitees. Indeed, some might argue that these potential donors were better off because our methods induced more giving and therefore a higher provision of the public good. When the research makes participants better off, benefits society, and confers anonymity and just treatment to all subjects, the lack of informed consent seems defensible. Ethical issues surrounding human experimentation are of utmost importance. Yet, the benefits and costs of informed consent should be carefully considered in each situation. Those cases in which there are minimal benefits of informed consent but large costs are prime candidates for relaxation of informed consent. 1. 1.[↵][5] 1. S. D. Levitt, 2. J. A. List , J. Econ. Persp. 21, 153 (2007). [OpenUrl][6][CrossRef][7][Web of Science][8] 2. 2.[↵][9] 1. R. Homan , The Ethics of Social Research (Longman, London, 1991). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1156716 [2]: pending:yes [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BEcon.%2BPersp.%26rft.volume%253D21%26rft.spage%253D153%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1257%252Fjep.21.2.153%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1257/jep.21.2.153&link_type=DOI [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000246989400008&link_type=ISI [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text