Animal research: methods, ethics, and applications

Animal Research

Milgram and the Ethics of Psychological Experimentation

Milgram's experiment, while it may be viewed as controversial in a modern context, was ultimately ethical. This is because the American Psychological Association (or "APA") provides five general principles in its ethical code of conduct, the document scientists are meant to use to govern ethical decision-making in experiment design and implementation. Milgram's work does not defy any of these principles, which are given as: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, Fidelity and Responsibility, Integrity, Justice, and Respect for People's Rights and Dignity (APA, 2010). One of the stated ethical goals is "safeguard the welfare and rights of…subjects of research" (APA, 2010). While this may appear to run counter to the Milgram experiment, in which subjects were led to believe that they had a hand in causing harm to another human being (which could result in psychological distress), in fact the experimenters took care to treat the subjects humanely and with dignity. For example, the subjects were assured of the safety of the "learner" throughout the experiment and the experiment was ceased after the subject expressed a repeated desire to terminate the experiment. In addition, the experimenters provided after care to the subject by fully informing them of the true nature of the experiment and allowing them to see that they had not done any real harm. Psychologists have a duty to their subjects to do this kind work after they have obtained their data, to lessen the stress that participation in the experiment may cause.

The experiment could be easily replicated today and is perhaps as relevant as ever, as people still struggle to understand the implications of authoritarian pressure and the ability of people to harm one another. This has come up in prison torture situations, like those committed by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib. There are several variables that the experimenters do not test in Milgram's original experiment. For instance, would women be more or less likely to submit to the experimenter's requests to continue administering shocks? Would subjects be more or less likely to continue shocking if they were better acquainted or able to develop a relationship with the learner beforehand? What if the learner was of a different race, ethnic, or socioeconomic background from the subject, or if they were of a different gender? The experiment is well-designed to test a variety of such situations.