By Amanda King
Voices Editor
@theamandaking
Historically, psychologists have discovered a tremendous amount of knowledge regarding the human mind using case studies.
In fact, it is mostly due to these case studies that we understand mental diseases, brain abnormalities and human behavior. Unfortunately, these cases are not always ethical, and thus many regulations have been put on psychological experiments.
Even so, there are some psychologists who believe that regulations need to be reduced by revising the Code of Conduct as put forth by the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Committee.
However, the potential advances in knowledge do not justify the guaranteed harm.
Look at the case of Little Albert. The American Psychological Association published an experiment done in the early 1900’s wherein behavioral scientist John B. Watson introduced baby Albert to certain animals — such as rats and dogs — and allowed him to play with them. The scientists leading the experiment would then ring a loud bell behind him every time he reached for the animal, causing him to cry — and eventually they conditioned him to fear these stimuli.
The objective of this experiment was to understand conditioned responses; but in the process, psychological damage was inflicted upon this baby, and he was eventually terrified of all the animals presented to him — and even some colors and objects that resembled them.
Watson might have garnered useful information from this experiment, but does it justify the emotional trauma inflicted upon Little Albert? Especially considering the subject was a baby, and as such, was unable to consent?
Maybe the real fault lies in the parents who allowed this experiment to happen.
Another case published by the American Psychological Association exemplifying the harm scientific experiments have caused is that of “Genie the feral child.” For the first 12 years of her life, her father strapped her to a bed or child’s potty. She wasn’t allowed to communicate with any other human beings — aside from her father, who only barked at her.
Thankfully, she was rescued from the horrendous abuse — only to be revictimized by the psychologists who poked and prodded her afterwards. They saw her upbringing as an opportunity to study cognitive development, due to her never acquiring language; thus, she was unwillingly put through numerous scientific tests to determine her mental capacity and learning ability.
While in this time she made a modicum of progress in developing communication skills, learning social cues and working past her trauma, the consequences of being bounced around constantly from hospital to foster home to psych ward eventually caught up to her … and ultimately she began to regress.
Though her whereabouts are unknown today, it is generally believed that she resides in a nursing home — as when she lost her progress, the scientists lost interest.
While there are many ethical problems surrounding the experiments on Little Albert and Genie, one particular issue in both cases is that both were incapable of consenting to what was done to them.
This of course brings up the ethicality of those who can consent — as undoubtedly there are many adults who would volunteer for potentially dangerous experiments for money, notoriety or other lucrative reasons; and if they consent, how is it wrong?
But this is another reason restrictions were brought up to begin with: if people really need something — such as, and most often, money — they will do whatever is necessary to obtain it. Particularly if they have families to take care of or are unable to go about finding safe work, they might seek out risky jobs such as unsanctioned experiments.
These types of murky situations can lead to scientists taking advantage of desperate people. What happens if said people do not really understand what they are in for and wish to leave mid-experiment but are not allowed to?
Regardless, one commonality between almost all who argue for less scientific restrictions is the belief that morality can be compromised if it leads to the advancement of knowledge.
If you were given a chance to cure cancer, but you had to traumatize a few innocent people, would you do it?
Many psychologists believe the answer is a resounding yes, because without sacrificing your morality, you don’t have the necessary room to explore and make new breakthroughs.
This brings us back to the age-old adage of “is sacrificing the few worth saving the many?” The answer naturally depends on your sense of right and wrong.
Morality is subjective, and some psychologists might consider themselves especially moral for breaking the rules to gain knowledge that could help people later.
But let me ask you this — are these breakthroughs really necessary?
As in the case of Little Albert, psychologists made discoveries in the process of classical conditioning; in the case of “Genie the feral child,” psychologists made great strides in understanding the role language plays in cognitive development.
But is that knowledge essential? Is it especially important in day-to-day life, or human survival? Has the insight gained by terrorizing Little Albert and Genie given psychologists exclusive information that’s served to help others? Or has it simply satisfied a scientific curiosity?
I firmly believe that harm to the few does not justify possible benefit to the masses; even if these regulations are reduced, there is no guarantee that the experiments will be successful.
One important factor of a successful experiment is its ability to be replicated. Do we really want to repeat these harmful experiments on even more subjects, traumatize even more children, to ensure the results are consistent?
Additionally, cases such as Little Albert are particularly unreliable because there was trauma inflicted, which blurs the conclusions drawn by the results. If you are put in a stressful or scary situation, you would likely do something that ordinarily, you would not; therefore, results from unrestricted testing are not worth the cost.
Though, of course, I don’t think the trauma would be worth it even if the results were excruciatingly clear.
Morality might be subjective, but there is no world where causing someone emotional trauma in the name of science is the right thing to do.
Restrictions on psychologists keep undue and unnecessary trauma from occurring during experimentation — and these restrictions shouldn’t be reduced, because the negative effects that would have on the responsibility of scientists, the test subjects and the very name of science are not worth the sacrifice of morality.
How do we deserve to learn more about the human mind if we have to do inhumane things to acquire it?