Computer Characters Tortured for Science

Rob Carr writes "Considered unethical to ever perform again with humans, researcher Mel Slater recreated the Milgram experiment in a immersive virtual environment. Subjects (some of whom could see and hear the computerized woman, others who were only able to read text messages from her) were told that they were interacting with a computer character and told to give increasingly powerful electric shocks when wrong answers were given or the 'woman' took too long to respond. The computer program would correspondingly complain and beg as the 'shocks' were ramped up, falling apparently unconscious before the last shock. The skin conductance and electrocardiograms of the subjects were monitored. Even though the subjects knew they were only 'shocking' a computer program, their bodies reacted with increased stress responses. Several of the ones who could see and hear the woman stopped before reaching the 'lethal' voltage, and about half considered stopping the study. The full results of the experimental report can be read online at PLoS One. Already, some (like William Dutton of the Oxford Internet Institute) are asking whether even this sanitized experiment is ethical."

Comments

Re:Did subjects know about the Milgram experiment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha, you fail. The REAL objective of the study was to test literacy in slashdot posters.
FTFA...

"For those 12 in the VC who wanted to stop before the end, 5 claimed to be well-acquainted with the original Milgram study"

The secondary objective was to test for the proportion of slashdot readers that RTFA.

Re:Why unethical?

[justinbach]

Speaking as a cognitive scientist, I can tell you that dealing with IRBs (internal review boards) for getting experimental approval gives you a different appreciation of the term "ethics" than might be understood by someone trying to live a morally sound lifestyle (for which, btw, I applaud you).

Essentially, in order for an IRB to approve a study to be performed using human subjects, one of two requirements must be met: either there is ABSOLUTELY NO RISK involved on the part of the subject (i.e. simple psychophysical tests of perception and so forth), or the risks must be outweighed by the potential gain in scientific knowledge that the experiment offers (i.e. clinical trials of drugs that, while risky, hold the promise of curing serious illnesses).

All studies require that subjects sign an IRB-approved consent form that enumerates the risks inherent in the experiment (or lack thereof), and IRBs require a submission of experimental intent and aim so that they may weigh the potential risks and benefits of the experiment. Some people would argue that *any* experiment is ethical as long as you can find subjects willing to be a part of them and sign a liability waiver, but the reality of the situation is that before any subject even has the option to sign their life away an IRB must first approve that such a situation would be ethically sound. Without IRB approval, you won't get published, and without being published, you won't get funding. That's the cycle.

Milgram's original experiments were deemed unethical because of the psychological trauma experienced by the subjects being ordered to up the voltage. They were put in the emotionally distressing situation of having to choose between following the experimenter's (i.e. authority figure's) orders and their own moral code, and this situation has since been deemed unacceptable. The reason for this is that the experiment's potential insights into the frailty of human morality in the face of authority simply weren't interesting or essential enough for the advancement of science to justify the risks of seriously traumatizing the subjects.

As far as I can tell, the reason this experiment is more experimentally justifiable is simply because the "victim" is explicitly virtual--a fact of which subjects are aware--so the situation, as it doesn't involve hurting actual people, isn't as emotionally traumatizing.