Ethical Questions in Social and Behavioral Sciences, History of

Andrea Ploder, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract
A systematical discussion of Ethical Questions in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) started to unfold in the United
States during the 1940s and 1950s and came to a provisional climax in the late 1960s and early 1970s. During this time,
several ethical codes were released and collected volumes on the matter published. The debate brought about considerable shifts in perspective in the professional communities. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, it slowly ashed over from
the United States to Canada and Europe. Today, ethical codes and committees have become scientic normality in most
of the SBS.

Ethical Questions in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS)

are manifold. They touch on a broad variety of topics and are
discussed with reference to a wide range of principles from
respect for human dignity and informed consent to the misuse
of expertise and the upholding of scientic standards.
Today, ethical codes and committees have become scientic
normality in most of the SBS. They appear in supervising
agreements, dissertations, research funding forms, etc. From
a historical perspective, the institutionalization of ethical
concerns is a rather recent phenomenon. Ethical codes have
developed with different rapidity, shape, and binding force
among the disciplines and national communities.
This entry addresses the history of research ethics in the SBS
from different angles. It starts with a sketch of early developments in other disciplines and professional contexts the
prehistory of research ethics in the SBS and continues with
early debates and institutionalization processes in psychology,
sociology, and anthropology. The next section discusses some
prominent cases in order to show the dynamics of the development from within the debates that shaped them. The last
section addresses further factors that need to be taken into
account in order to understand the history of research ethics in
its complexity.

Prehistory
Within the SBS, ethical questions were no big topic before
1940. There was hardly any debate in leading journals, and
academic associations did not release ofcial codes of conduct.
Some debates from the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, which would nowadays be framed as ethical, were
framed as epistemological problems at that time.
Outside the SBS, the debate on research ethics has much
a longer tradition. The most prominent arena was the eld
of medicine and medical research, where the rst known
codication dates back to the fth century BC the Hippocratic
Oath. In 1830, John William Wilcock published his Laws
Relating to the Medical Profession and in 1912, the American
Medical Association released The Principles of Medical Ethics (for
further detais see Lock, 1995, p. 515). The Nuremberg Code,
released in 1947 subsequent to one of the Nuremberg trials,
stated ethical principles for humane experimentation and

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 8

medical research. It focused on informed consent, noncoercion, and the benet of the research participants. Moreover, a lot of professional codes of ethics were released during
the 1940s, most of them by nonacademic professional organizations in the United States (see Hobbs, 1948).

Early Debates and Institutionalization

Debates on ethical issues came up at different times and with
different intensities throughout the various national SBS
communities and disciplines. Starting prominently in the
United States, they spread to other countries and international
associations. Table 1 compares professional codes of ethics in
psychology, sociology, and anthropology in different national
and international contexts by the year of their rst release. It
shows remarkable asynchronicity between the United States,
Australia, and Europe, and also between the disciplines.
In economics, debates on ethical questions came up
during the 1970s as well, one very early proponent being
Kenneth J. Arrow (1973). He argued that under certain
circumstances ethical codes can contribute to economic
efciency (p. 318). Still, Arrow and other economists concerned with ethical questions were and still are focused on
business ethics not on ethical standards for economic research.
In recent years however, national and international economic
associations started to formulate disclosure policies for their
journals. In July 2012, the American Economic Association
released a disclosure policy for all of its journals. The same goes
for the Royal Economic Society (Great Britain) and its
Economic Journal (2012), as well as the Canadian Economic
Association with its journal CJE (2014). Neither of these associations have released a code of ethics for its members so far.
According to its current ofce, the European Economic Association (EEA) set up an Ethics Committee in August 2013 which
reported back to the EEA Council in August 2014. The Royal
Economic Society to give an example requires a disclosure of
any nancial or other interests or connections that might raise
any question of bias in the work reported or the conclusions
for every submission to the Economic Journal (RES, 2012).
As becomes clear from the table above, early debates
on ethical guidelines for SBS researchers were focussed
on the psychological, sociological, and anthropological

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03013-0

53

54

Table 1

Codes of Ethics in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: years of rst release
Sociology

Anthropology

International
Associations

1976
Resolution Concerning Professional Ethics in Psychology
(The International Union of Psychological Science)

2001
Code of Ethics
(International Sociological Association)

(International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological

Sciences)

European
Associations

1995
Carta Ethica or Charter of Professional Ethics for
Psychologists
(European Federation of Psychologists Associations)

(European Sociological Association (ESA)). (According to its

current ofce, the ESA plans to release a Code of Ethics by
2014.)

(European Association of Social Anthropologists)

United States
of America

1953
Ethical Standards of Psychologists: A summary of ethical
principles (American Psychological Association)
1973
Ethical Principles and Guidelines in the Conduct of Research
With Human Participants (American Psychological
Association)

1971
Code of Ethics (American Sociological Association)

1971
Code of Ethics (American Anthropological Association
(AAA))
1973
Statements on Ethics. Principles of Professional
Responsibility (AAA)

Canada

1986
1994
1994
Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological
Statement of Professional Ethics (Canadian Sociological
Statement of Professional Ethics (Canadian Sociology &
Association (CPA).) (According to its current ofce, the CPA
Association)
Anthropology Association)
used the APA Code from the 1950s until the release of their
own Code of Ethics. The rst steps toward a CPA Code were
taken around 1970.)
1998
Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Canadian Institute for Health Research, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, Social Science and
Humanities Research Council)

Australia

1949
Code of Professional Conduct (since 1997: Code of Ethics)
(Australian Psychological Society)

1998
Ethical Guidelines (The Australian Sociological Association
(TASA).) (According to the current TASA ofce, the need
for a code of ethics was rst raised in 1971. A code was
drafted in the 1970s but not adopted until 1998.)

1985
Code of Ethics (Australian Anthropological Society (AAS).)
(In 1981, the AAS formed an Ethics Committee to draw
up a Code of Ethics. Peter Sutton drafted a Code (see
Sutton, 1986) which was revised and nally adopted in
1985. For further historical details, see AAS, 2012.)

Great Britain

2009
Code of Ethics and Conduct
(British Psychological Society)

2002
Statement of Ethical Practice
(British Sociological Association)

1999
Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice
(Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and
Commonwealth)

Germany

1998
Ethische Richtlinien (Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Psychologie)

1992
Ethik-Kodex (Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Soziologie)

2009
Frankfurter Erklrung zur Ethik in der Ethnologie
(Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Vlkerkunde)

Ethical Questions in Social and Behavioral Sciences, History of

Psychology

Ethical Questions in Social and Behavioral Sciences, History of

communities in the United States. The Australian, Canadian,

and European codes refer to them considerably in style and
content. In the following, these debates will be examined in
a bit more detail.

Psychology
Within the SBS, the eld of psychology in the US was the rst
discipline to deal extensively with ethical questions. One
reason for this early engagement might be the strong academic
networks between medicine and psychology during the rst
half of the twentieth century. Moreover, many psychologists
were involved in the treatment of World War II soldiers. They
were asked to determine the draft eligibility of prospective
soldiers or care for their mental health after their return from
the eld. Ethical dilemmas occurred quite frequently (Fisher,
2012, p. 3).
In 1940, a Committee on Scientic and Professional Ethics
recommended the election of a Standing Committee and the
release of a professional code to the American Psychological
Association (APA). In retrospect, U.S. psychologist Nicholas
Hobbs (1948) notes ve motives for the interest of the
community in a professional code of ethics: (1) a growing
sense of professional unity, (2) the need to ensure public
welfare, (3) to promote sound relationships with other
professions, (4) to reduce intra-group misunderstandings,
and (5) to promote professional standing of the group as
a whole (p. 80).
In 1947, the APA appointed the rst Standing Committee on
Ethical Standards for Psychology (chaired by Edward Tolman). It
drafted a code of conduct and circulated it for broad discussion
within the professional community (see Hobbs, 1948) before
its nal release in 1953. The procedure (proposed by Nicholas
Hobbs (1948), a member of the committee) was highly
participatory and drew from psychological insights to group
dynamics and motives for ethical behavior. The goal was to
develop a technique which will be effective in modifying
human behavior (Hobbs, 1948, p. 82) and help to ethically
imporove the professional conduct of psychologists. The code
was based on 1000 reports of APA members describing and
discussing ethically relevant situations and experiences in their
professional life. From these reports, the Committee distilled
a long and case-oriented code draft and played it back to the
members for further revision. In 1959, it was revised and
compressed, got more comprehensive, and then consisted of
18 principles and a preamble.
After a long period of minor revisions and adaptations to
new elds of research and new methods, the APA Code was
substantially revised in 1992. Since that time, the code distinguishes aspirational principles from 180 specic ethical standards.
The principles are very general and meant to represent the
foundational values of the profession, while the standards are
meant to be distinct enough to serve as a basis for enforceable
decisions by the APA and other Ethical Boards. In 1996, the
APA Ethics Committee appointed an Ethics Code Task Force
(chaired by Celia B. Fisher) in order to prepare another major
revision of the code (Fisher, 2012, p. 6). The revised version
was again subjected to a major participatory process and
released in 2002. Apart from some new provisions concerning
methodical innovations, a wider range of addressees, and some

55

considerations related to the Internet, its major achievement

was a higher level of concreteness, detail, and enforceability.

Sociology
After some scattered remarks and claims for regulation in
earlier years, U.S. sociologists engaged in a broad discussion of
ethical questions from the late 1950s on. The main impulse
came from a number of controversial studies, extensively
debated in journals and at conferences. These debates are an
interesting document for a process which prepares the release
of ethical codes in the late 1960s and early 1970s and some of
them will be considered in more detail below.
In 1961, the American Sociological Association (ASA)
appointed a Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE,
chaired by Robert C. Angell) in order to discuss ethical issues
systematically. Due to fundamental controversies, a new
Committee was appointed in 1967 (chaired by Edgar A.
Schuler), with the mission to formulate a statement on ethics
for sociological research. After several revisions, the ASA Code
of Ethics, a Council Preamble, and a Committee Preamble
were approved by the members in 1971. The Committee
Preamble formulated general statements on the identity of
sociology as a profession and the nature of its Code of Ethics.
It considered the fact that a lot of sociologists did not agree on
the necessity of the Code of Ethics (e.g., Becker, 1964) and
explicitly compared the development of this Code to the
development of Common Law: based on cases from which
principles are drawn slowly and carefully (Schuler, 1969:
317). The Code itself was rather short and vague, focusing
(very generally) on the subjects right to privacy, condentiality, and protection from personal harm; on the researchers
duty of objectivity and integrity; and on the declaration of
sources of nancial support. Apart from a rather general claim
in the Councils Preamble not to manipulate persons to serve
their quest for truth (p. 318), the question of disguised
observation a highly controversial topic at that time was
avoided. The code got substantially revised in 1984 and 1997.
The 1997 revision was preceded by 3 years of discussion
within the COPE and aimed at a clarication of style,
improvement of enforcement tools, and accordance with the
new requirements of granting agencies. At the 2014 ASA
meeting in San Francisco, the current Executive Ofcer suggested to revisit the Code of Ethics again. A committee has
been formed.

Anthropology
The debate on research ethics in anthropology also started
within the U.S. community. In contrast to psychology and
sociology, it was not primarily focused on the relationship
between researcher and research participants but on sponsoring
relationships. Due to its long-term character, anthropological
and ethnological eldwork often requires the approval and
sponsoring of state or private authorities. Sometimes these
authorities have specic interests in the area and tie their
support to a scientic pursuit of these interests. Intervention
may reach from the adjustment of research questions to an
obligation to pass on politically sensitive research ndings
to the authorities and/or hold them back from public and

56

Ethical Questions in Social and Behavioral Sciences, History of

scientic community. In an early reaction to this problem, the

Council of the American Anthropological Association (AAA)
released a one-page Resolution on the Freedom of Publication
in 1948. It dealt with the question of academic freedom in
situations of external research funding and claimed freedom
of interpretation and publication for anthropological research
results. During the 1960s, the debate expanded signicantly.
The discipline got involved in several scandals around
controversial political projects including anthropological
research. The most prominent case is related to Project Camelot
and will be discussed in further detail below.
In 1965, the AAA Executive Board (EB) sent a report to the
Council of Fellows (COF) concerning secret research and the
allegedly unethical involvement of U.S. anthropology with
state politics. The Council asked the Board to investigate
accusations in detail and the Board founded a Committee on
Research Problems and Ethics. Chair Ralph L. Beals presented
a report (the so-called Beal Report) at the AAA plenary session in
1966 which led to the release of the rst AAA code of ethics by
the COF the Statement on Problems of Anthropological Research
and Ethics in 1967. One year later, an Interim Committee on Ethics
was installed. It recommended the election of a Standing
Committee on Ethics (COE) and presented a draft for an ethical
code. Both suggestions were controversially discussed: a lot of
AAA members considered them to be unnecessary or itself
unethical. Nevertheless, the rst ofcial COE was elected in
1970 and released a code of ethics called Principles of Professional
Responsibility, as well as a text on Role and Function of the
Committee on Ethics in 1971. In the same year, another case of
dubious connections between research and secret governmental plans came up the Thailand case. It provoked severe
tensions between the COE and the EB, led to the foundation of
an ad hoc committee (chaired by Margaret Mead) and divided
the Association into two fractions. The Mead Report disburdened researchers in Thailand, stating that no violation of
the 1967 statement had taken place. Still, the discussion
remained controversial and emotional until the end of the
Vietnam War in 1973.
Afterward, the emphasis of the COE shifted toward a microlevel, focusing on questions of informed consent, anonymization, plagiarism, and so on (Hill, 1987). The last revisions of
the code took place in 1998, 2009, and 2012. Compared to the
Codes in psychology and sociology, the AAA code is still rather
short (app. 6 pages) and principle-oriented, and the matters for
its enforcement are very restricted.

Leading Cases
The history of ethical codes in the SBS covers only a small yet
important part of the history of ethical questions. Ethical
debates do not start with codications. Typically, they start
with concerns, complaints, and convictions of scientists and
laymen about alleged ethical wrongdoings. Therefore, an
important part of the history of ethical questions is a history of
cases which leads to discussions about ethical problems within
a profession. The relevance of leading cases especially for the
debate within the United States is underlined by the plan to
compliment the ASA Code of Ethics with a casebook in the late
1990s. In the following, some of the most prominent cases will

be discussed. The choice does obviously neither claim for

completeness nor for representativeness but it helps to understand the structure and style of discussions in the early stage of
the debate.
The 1950s and 1960s were a high time for ethical debates
on cases in the SBS. Apart from those discussed here, one might
mention Alfred C. Kinsey on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male/
the Human Female (1948/1953), Festinger/Riecken/Schachter:
When Prophecy Fails (1956), Laud Humphreys Tearoom Trade
(1970), Philip Zimbardos Stanford Prison Experiment (1971),
and many others. Many of them provoked controversies in
sociological, psychological, and/or anthropological journals
and some of them still serve as reference points for arguments
and reevaluations of research ethical questions. Altogether,
these cases document a process of growing sensitivity toward
ethical questions in the SBS, resulting in the release of ethical
codes in the late 1960s and 1970s. This process has at least
three interesting characteristics. First, a shift in ethical convictions: the idea that ethical considerations are subjective in
nature and therefore no legitimate criteria for scientic work,
shifted toward a notion of professional ethics, binding on other
than subjective grounds. Second, a step back from the conviction that scientic progress justies all methods of investigation. Increasingly, ethical qualities reached the status of an
important criterion for good research. And third, growing
differentiation: the conviction formed that there is more than
one kind of ethically relevant research relationship and more
than one type of ethical responsibility. Different kinds of
secrecy, grades of anonymization, kinds of informed consent,
etc., started to be distinguished (see e.g. Roth, 1962).

The Springdale Case (1958)

The Springdale case became one of the leading cases for
questions of anonymization. It refers to a community study by
Arthur J. Vidich and Joseph Bensman (Small Towns in Mass
Societies, 1958), reporting on a ctitious town in rich ethnographic detail. The material stems from eldwork in Ithaca,
where Vidich was engaged in another research project. He
considered his notes and other material from the project to be
valuable and decided to write a book on the structure and
organization of the community. He tried to anonymize town
and community members, but the true identity of Springdale
was easily revealed.
The book received broad attention, and many colleagues
expressed concern about the ethical implications of the study.
William Foote Whyte (1958) launched a debate on the case in
Human Organization, resulting in a big discussion on professional ethics. Apart from failed anonymization, Vidich and
Bensman were attacked for disguised investigations and for
using material from the project without permission from the
project leaders.
In their rst response, Vidich and Bensman refused to
concede any ethical problems in their research and claimed to
have acted for the sake of science in every respect. They argued
for the impossibility of further anonymization without
changing the story (and its sociological punch line) completely.
They underlined the importance of the study for the eld of
community studies and claimed that everything they said
about the town and its members was common sense in

Ethical Questions in Social and Behavioral Sciences, History of

Springdale. Among others, Whyte (1958) pointed toward the

difference between orally passed on local knowledge and
written accounts with the pledge of scientic evidence. The
second edition of the book (Vidich and Bensman, 1968)
contains supplementary materials and a discussion of methodological and ethical questions. In his 2009 autobiography,
Vidich also reports about the circumstances and faith of the
study at length (Chapter 8).

Alcoholics Anonymous (1960)

John Loands and Robert Lejeunes study on Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) became a leading case on problems of secret
observation. In 1959, the two sociologists held a research
seminar at Columbia University and sent some of their graduate students to AA gatherings for participant observation. The
observers concealed their identity as researchers and pretended
to be newcomers to the group. Their dressing and behavior was
planned and rehearsed in detail before they entered the eld.
After each meeting, the students took eld notes and discussed
their observations with the teachers. The use of a hidden
recorder was considered, but dropped for reasons of feasibility.
In 1960, Loand and Lejeune sent a report of their main
ndings and some methodological reections to the journal
Social Problems (Loand and Lejeune, 1960).
In the next issue, Fred Davis (1961) accused the authors of
premediated deception (p. 364), lack of informed consent,
and tacit disrespect shown for AAs values (p. 364). Moreover, he took the case as an example of a general moral
dilemma of sociological research: the exploitation of an outof-research-role in order to elicit information for research
purposes. Altogether, he considered the approach of Loand
and Lejeune to be a violation of the collective conscience of
the community, if not that of the profession, altogether less
than human (sic), and hence unworthy of a discipline which,
whatever else it represents itself as, also calls itself by that
name (p. 365). Loands reply to this critique took a rather
radical stand against Davis allegations: our obligation to
science, Loand wrote, is the objective, full and unbiased
execution and reporting of observation. Ethical considerations
were therefore simply not part of the legitimate criteria for
judging research. Therefore, as scientists and professionals, we
have no reason to be concerned with Mr. Davis opinions of our
personal moral standards. (p. 366) In this article, Loand
disputed the merits of professional research ethics altogether.
Since the generalization of individual moral convictions can
lead to absurd laws of conduct, he argued, moral dilemmas of
researchers were completely up to the individual and should
not be solved by the intervention of the profession at large or
other professionals speaking personally (p. 367). (Some years
later, Loand changed his opinion on this matter.)
Loands reaction provoked a broad discussion within the
U.S. sociological community. In 1962, Julius A. Roth tried to
structure the debate in a letter to the editor of Social Problems.
He distinguished different layers of consideration (size of the
observed group, intimacy of pre-research relationship, level of
organization and power of the observed group, systematic
character of research, etc.) and concurring moral intuitions
(outcome- versus principle-oriented) concerning secret observation. Interestingly, Roth did not call for a code of ethics. On

57

the contrary he stated: We are more likely to develop a useful

and satisfying working ethic by analyzing the research process
of the sociologist himself than by drawing up written codes of
ethics which merely perpetuate current moral biases and restrict
rather than aid further ethical development (p. 284).
In 1965, Kai T. Erikson took up on the topic with another
text in Social Problems. He called for a distinction between
personal morality and professional ethics and interpreted the
latter as a contract between professionals. This contract implies
responsibilities in relationships of the researcher and (1) his
subjects, (2) his colleagues, (3) his students (who are asked to
do the work), and (4) his data. Disguised observation, Erikson
concluded, implies problems in all of these dimensions.
Moreover, Erikson suggested to distinguish between the
concealment of ones identity as a researcher and ones research
goals and its deliberate misrepresentation, the latter being
unethical in any case. Erikson refers to other cases (like
Springdale) as well and suggests to take rst steps toward
a general posture on the question of disguised participant
observation (p. 259).

The Milgram Experiment (1961)

The Milgram Experiment is one of the most famous experiments in social psychology and still serves as a reference case
for informed consent and the risk to inict moral and
psychological harm to research participants. It started in 1961,
during the trial on Adolf Eichmann. With his experiments, U.S.
psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to nd out what makes
people obey to an authority, if they are asked to act against their
personal moral convictions. He tried to test how much pain
people were prepared to inict to another person in mere
situational obedience to an authority. He deceived the participants about the real research question and asked them to play
the part of a teacher who tries to improve his/her students
results by inicting electroshocks for each mistake. In fact, the
alleged students were part of the research team and no electroshocks got ever displayed. The results were unexpected: 65%
of the participants were prepared to administer a 450 V shock,
although the alleged students claimed to stop the experiment
and displayed severe pain. (For details on the experiment, see
the chapter on Obedience.)
Despite the huge interest in the results by colleagues and
public (Milgrams ndings are still considered as a landmark
in the eld of obedience studies), it was strongly contested for
the ethical implications of the research setting. The most
prominent and insistent critic was Diana Baumrind,
a psychologist in Berkeley. After the 1963 publication of some
of Milgrams ndings in the Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, Baumrind wrote a comment in the American
Psychologist (1964), addressing four major ethical problems of
the experimental setting: (1) The participants did not know
which kind of study they were engaging in; (2) The participants were subjected to extreme stress (heavy sweating,
trembling, stuttering, and nervous laughter were reported).
They might have suffered psychological harm and an uneasiness to trust authorities as a result of their participation in the
experiment; (3) The participants were manipulated, discomforted, and embarrassed during the experiment. Thereby
they were (4) denied their dignity and their right not to be

58

Ethical Questions in Social and Behavioral Sciences, History of

used as a mere purpose for the researchers (secret) goals.

According to Baumrind, all of these problems can if not
addressed properly lead to a decline in public image of
psychology and is therefore ethically problematic toward the
profession and colleagues. She calls for full information about
the possible risks and systematic care for eventual harms of
participants in the aftermath.
In his response, Milgram (1964) claimed that stress as well
as indignation of the research participants were neither intended nor accepted but came completely unexpected. To refrain
from the risk of unexpected reactions of research participants,
Milgram argues, would mean to refrain from scientic inquiry.
He also presented the results from a questionnaire among the
participants, indicating that 84% of the participants were
retrospectively glad to have participated in the experiment and
only 1.3% said that they were either sorry or very sorry to have
participated. Up to one year after the experiment, participants
were provided with results, appreciation for their effort, and
the opportunity to talk about their reactions. Milgrams reply
does not directly address Baumrinds concern about the
concealment of the research question.

Project Camelot (196465)

Project Camelot was the code for a social science research
project initiated by the U.S. Army in 1964. Conceived by
a Special Operation Research Ofce in the American University
of Washington D.C. and Research and Development Unit of
the U.S. Army, the management was conded to Rex Hopper,
a scholar with expertise on revolutionary movements in Latin
America. The goal of the project was to study the cultural,
economic, and political conditions of internal war by means of
systems analysis and with an international team of social
science researchers. According to one of its rst documents (a
letter of invitation to participate, mailed to a selected number
of international researchers), Project Camelot was meant to
determine the feasibility of developing a general social systems
model which would make it possible to predict and inuence
politically signicant aspects of social change in the developing
nations of the world (1964, quoted from Horowitz, 1967,
p. 4f.). Due to several miscommunications, breaches of secrecy,
and diplomatic entanglements the project got stopped before it
really started. Nevertheless, the Camelot affair caused big
discussion within academia, the military, the public, and the
state ofcials of several countries (especially Chile and the
United States). Some of the involved anthropologists got suspected of espionage for the U.S. Government or unwittingly
supporting political interventions against local populations.
More generally the question came up, if and under which
circumstances state funding of and/or political interests in
research are likely to restrict scientic freedom to an unbearable
extent. The case was discussed in U.S. Congress hearings and
received broad attention by the media as well as professional
academic organizations. For details on the course of events, see
Horowitz, 1967.
After its termination, the project lost public interest but
remained a hot topic among social scientists for many years.
Freedom of scientic inquiry in a situation of governmental
funding and military supervision, responsibility for research
data, and political implications of research were extensively

debated with regard to Project Camelot. Until today, it as

a reference case for ethical dilemmas of state-funded research. It
signicantly inuenced the release of the rst AAA Ethical Code
in 1965 and was also quoted in connection with the ASA Code
of Ethics of 1969.

Other Relevant Factors

So far, this entry focused on the foundation of ethical codes
and some leading cases in psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Of course, this is only part of the story. In order to give
an idea of the complexity of the development as a whole, this
last section addresses some additional factors that are important for the history of ethical questions in the SBS.
The history of research ethics in a discipline is closely linked
to the history of its research methods. Experimental research
designs are more likely to trigger problems of informed consent
and the risk of psychological, physical, and moral harm,
ethnographies often touch on problems of disguised observation and anonymization, and expensive methods requiring
external funding (like extensive eldwork or large-scale experiments) are likely to get in trouble with questions of tortious
inuence and conict of interests. New methods go along with
new ethical problems, and the import of methods from other
disciplines comes together with the ethical problems related to
it.
The history of research ethics is also strongly related to the
history of the disciplines and their academic organization. Ethical
questions became more and more urgent with the rising
number of researchers, the increase of public research funding,
and the growing public interest in the results of this research.
The history of research ethics is also linked to the history of
research funding. The development of ethical codes of conduct
historically coincides (at least in the United States) with the
development of large-scale research funding programs. Apart
from ethical problems linked to funded research (see the
discussion above), ethical nonobjection also became one of the
leading criteria for research funding institutions. Today, many
research funding agencies require a certicate of harmlessness
by a professional ethics committee. Accordingly, universities
are required to install such committees and release a code that
guides its work.
The history of research ethics is also connected to the history
of academic journals, where most of the debates on ethical
questions took and still take place. A platform for frequent
professional exchange enables quick, intense, and transparent
debates. For the development of collective ethical convictions,
standards, and codes, this kind of discussion is crucial. An
analysis of the most prominent cases shows that the debate
often follows a three-step pattern: (1) breach of an unsaid
ethical principle in a particular research case, (2) accusation
and discussion of the case in professional journals and/or in
public, and (3) enacting or modication of a professional code
of ethics.
Finally, the history of research ethics is closely connected to
the history of scientic trust. The fast-growing development of
research ethics in the SBS took place during a time of public
disappointment with the merits of science after World War II.
The public as well as scholars started to look more closely at the

Ethical Questions in Social and Behavioral Sciences, History of

ethical quality of academic research. In the late 1960s, student

revolts as well as the upcoming science studies supported this
critical approach and further decomposed the holy grail of
science. This situation was remarkably different from the early
twentieth century, when most people (scholars as well as
nonacademics) held a strong belief in the powers of scientic
reasoning (for a similar argument, see Lock, 1995, p. 519).
Problems of research ethics are always located in a broad eld
of norms and interests, not all of them being ethical in nature (see
Filstead, 1970, p. 266). The history of research ethics is always
embedded in the history of political, professional, and institutional norms and interests.
Ethical convictions change over time. What was considered to
be ethically neutral at one time can be considered to be ethically unbearable at another; minor ethical concerns can
signicantly grow in importance. The cases discussed above
have shown that quite clearly. Therefore, the history of research
ethics is not only a history of codication or changing moral
sentiments of academics but also a history of moral change on
a broader scale.

Conclusion
Ethical questions in the SBS started to unfold in the United
States during the 1940s and 1950s and came to a provisional
climax in the late 1960s and early 1970s. During this
time, several ethical codes were released and books on the
matter published (e.g., Horowitz, 1967; Filstead, 1970). The
debate brought about considerable shifts in perspective in the
professional communities. In the beginning, the debate was
highly controversial and emotional, revealing both the significance of ethical questions for the community and the wide
range of opinions on how they can be solved. In some of the
early case discussions, scholars argued against ethical considerations with reference to the moral neutrality of research.
With the release of ethical codes and installation of ethical
boards in the leading professional associations and universities, this view got more and more contested.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the debates on research
ethics slowly ashed over from the United States to Canada
and Europe. Some scholarly associations used the codes of
their U.S. colleagues before releasing their own. In Europe,
the rst ethical codes were released during the early 1990s.
The 1990s was also a high time for research ethics in the
United States, where a lot of ethical codes were considerably
reviewed.

See also: Anthropological Research, Ethics of; Applied Social

Research, History of; Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct
in Social and Behavioral Research; Privacy of Individuals in
Social Research: Condentiality; Research Funding: Ethical
Aspects; Research Publication: Ethical Aspects ; Social
Psychology: Research Methods.

59

Bibliography
American Economic Association, 2012. Disclosure Policy. http://www.aeaweb.org/
aea_journals/AEA_Disclosure_Policy.pdf (23.03.14.).
American Psychological Association, 1949. Developing a code of ethics for psychologists. A rst report of progress. American Psychologist 4 (1), 17.
Australian Anthropological Society, 2012. Code of Ethics. http://www.aas.asn.au/docs/
AAS_Code_of_Ethics.pdf (23.03.14.).
Arrow, K.J., 1973. Social responsibility and economic efciency. Public Policy 21,
303318.
Baumrind, D., 1964. Some thoughts on ethics of research: after reading Milgrams Behavioral Study of Obedience. American Psychologist 19 (6),
421423.
Becker, H.S., 1964. Against the code of ethics (for the ASA). American Sociological
Review 29 (3), 409410.
Davis, F., 1961. Comment on initial interactions of newcomers in alcoholics anonymous. Social Problems 8, 364365.
Filstead, W.J. (Ed.), 1970. Qualitative Methodology. Firsthand Involvement with the
Social World. Markham, Chicago.
Fisher, C.B., 2012. Decoding the Ethics Code. A Practical Guide for Psychologists.
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gingrich, P., Wien, F., 2007. Ethics of sociological practice: comments from the
Canadian Sociological Association. In: Swiss Sociological Association: Ethik in der
soziologischen Praxis. Seismo, Zrich, pp. 1920.
Hill, J., 1987. The committee on ethics: past, present, and future. In: Cassell, J.,
Jacobs, S. (Eds.), Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology. American
Anthropological Association, Washington, DC., pp. 1119.
Hobbs, N., 1948. The development of a code of ethical standards for psychology.
American Psychologist 3 (3), 8084.
Horowitz, I.L., 1967. The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot. Studies in the Relationship between Social Science and Practical Politics. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge,
London.
Lock, S., 1995. Research ethics a brief historical review to 1965. Journal of Internal
Medicine 238, 513520.
Loand, J.F., Lejeune, R.A., 1960. Initial interactions of newcomers in alcoholics
anonymous: a eld experiment. Social Problems 8, 102111.
Lowe, G.E., 1966. The camelot affair. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Tome 22 (5),
4448.
Milgram, S., 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology 67, 371378.
Milgram, S., 1964. Issues in the study of obedience: a reply to Baumrind. American
Psychologist 19 (11), 848852.
Royal Economic Society, 2012. The Economic Journal Ethics Policy. Publication Ethics
and Conicts of Interest. http://www.res.org.uk/view/ethicspolicyEconomic.html
(23.03.14.).
Roth, Julius A., 1962. Comments on Secret observation. Social Problems 9 (3),
283284.
Sieber, J.E., Tolich, M.B., 2013. Planning Ethically Responsible Research. A Guide for
Students and Internal Review Boards. Sage, Newbury Park.
Schuler, E.A., 1969. Toward a code of ethics for sociologists: a historical note.
American Sociologist 3, 316318.
Sutton, P., 1986. Draft code of ethics for professional anthropologists in Australia.
Australian Anthropological Society Newsletter 29, 1723.
Vidich, A.J., 2009. With a Critical Eye. An Intellectual and His Times. Newfound Press,
Knoxville.
Vidich, A.J., Bensman, J., 1958. Small Towns in Mass Society. Class, Power, and
Religion in a Rural Community. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Vidich, A.J., Bensman, J., 1968. Small Towns in Mass Society. Class, Power, and
Religion in a Rural Community. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Whyte, W.F., 1958. Editorial: Freedom and Responsibility in Research. The Springdale
Case. Human Organisation 17 (2), 12.