Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

The other human-subject experiments

C D Herrera1

  • 1Department of Philosophy, University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA.

The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
|April 1, 1997
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Protection of human subjects and scientific progress: can the two be reconciled?

The Hastings Center report·2006
Same author

The search for meaningful comparisons in boxing and medical ethics.

Journal of medical ethics·2004
Same author

Two arguments for 'covert methods' in social research.

The British journal of sociology·2004
Same author

Universal compulsory service in medical research.

Theoretical medicine and bioethics·2003
Same author

Ethics, deception, and 'Those Milgram experiments'.

Journal of applied philosophy·2002
Same author

Research ethics at the empirical side: Research Ethics: A Psychological Approach, edited by Barbara Stanley, Joan Sieber, and Gary Melton; Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology, by James Korn.

Theoretical medicine and bioethics·2001
Same journal

Neurobiological Determinism versus Human Freedom: Competing Explanatory Models and the Hope for Moral Enhancement.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Zygotes are Persisting Organisms.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Ethical Examination of Genetic Enhancement from the Perspective of Confucian Human Dignity.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Reproducing Anachronism: Ageing, Fertility and Inequality in Reproductive Governance.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Genetic Moral Enhancement-A View Based on Mencius' Theory of Human Nature.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
Same journal

Egalitarian Justice and the Prevalence Principle in Human Genome Editing.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
See all related articles

Deceptive psychology experiments present ethical dilemmas similar to medical research, primarily concerning human subjects and intentional deception. The utilitarian justifications often rely on flawed risk-benefit analyses, warranting scrutiny from bioethics experts.

Area of Science:

  • Psychology
  • Bioethics
  • Research Ethics

Background:

  • Deceptive psychology experiments, while less studied than medical research, share ethical challenges.
  • Key ethical concerns involve the use of human subjects and the implementation of intentional deception.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the ethical justifications for deception in psychology experiments.
  • To evaluate the utilitarian arguments used by psychologists to defend deception.
  • To highlight the need for bioethics commentary on these justifications.

Main Methods:

  • Critical examination of utilitarian arguments in psychology research.
  • Analysis of risk-benefit assessments in deceptive experiments.
  • Comparative review of ethical considerations across different research domains.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachBiomedical and Behavioral Research

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Utilitarian arguments for deception in psychology often contain flawed comparisons.
  • The accounts of risks and benefits in these justifications are frequently dubious.
  • Existing ethical frameworks may not adequately address the nuances of psychological deception.

Conclusions:

  • The ethical justification for deception in psychology requires more rigorous scrutiny.
  • Bioethicists are well-positioned to critically evaluate these arguments and assumptions.
  • Further interdisciplinary dialogue is needed to refine ethical standards for psychological research involving deception.