COLUMN: Ethical elasticity has its place

Published: Tuesday, November 4, 2003

In the summer of 1971, Phillip Zimbardo made headlines with the Stanford Prison Experiment. In what turned out to be a study in cruelty, moral turpitude and mental abuse, Zimbardo took paid volunteers, divided them into two groups - guards and prisoners - put them in "holding cells" and watched as an experiment designed to observe the psychology of prison turned into mayhem and madness.

The experiment was cut short after one student had an emotional breakdown and another assumed the role of prisoner so intensely that, when asked his name, he recited the prisoner number he had been assigned.

Regarded as one of the most unethical social psychology experiments of the modern era, the Stanford Prison Experiment is still repeated daily in spirit, and no one raises an eyebrow. Instead, we celebrate these experiments because they are aired on television as reality shows. Reality TV is not a new phenomenon and, in theory, fairly innocuous. But the new breeds of reality TV are so corrupt that they make the Stanford Prison Experiment look like a harmless puppy.

The discrepancies between television and science are vast; television entertains, science explains. However, there exists a cultural double standard that reflects poorly upon our character as a civilized people.

Science is held to the expectation of performing experiments in which human participants are not subjected to unwanted aggravation, can remain anonymous, and can withdraw from the experiment at any time. Science, unlike the real world, is supposed to be safe and controlled.

Reality TV is the antithesis of ethical experimentation. Chock full of deception, staged scenarios and discomfort that may lead to lifelong trauma, there is nothing prohibiting an unethical TV show from being produced, but there is in science.

Reality TV shows are, in essence, sociological experiments with a potentially harmful aftermath. "Average Joe" - an NBC dating show in which an NFL cheerleader and beauty pageant winner is set up with 16 unattractive, overweight nerds - studies human attraction. "Temptation Island" - a FOX show in which couples are provoked into cheating through access to superhumanly attractive members of the opposite sex - studies human infidelity. And in "One Bad Trip" - a show that studies autonomy, responsibility and promiscuity - MTV foots the bill for a spring break trip to Las Vegas or Lake Havasu while the parents and fiancées of the protagonists watch every foul and slutty thing they do.

The connection between the Stanford Prison Experiment and reality TV is one of an ethical nature. As a society, Americans have lambasted science for studies that involve an unethical component. But when these experiments are funded by a major television corporation and broadcast to millions, we celebrate and relish displays of immorality! The hypocrisy of the situation is appalling; we're not willing to incorporate mildly unethical practices into the canon of science in order to learn about the human condition, but we're willing to loosen our moral sentimentality when it's entertaining.

An article published in the New York Times ("The Cruelest Cure," Nov. 2) investigated the effects of a new line of behavioral therapy aimed at curbing the intensity of diagnosable anxiety disorders. In the past, anxiety disorders have been treated through systematic desensitization - a process in which patients are slowly and calmly exposed to their fear object by thinking about it, then seeing it at a distance and then seeing it up close. This process is effective but lengthy.

A new procedure, designed by David H. Barlow, director of the Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders at Boston University, exposes patients directly to their fears without prior desensitization. People with fear of public speaking are forced to address rude crowds right away. People with claustrophobia are encouraged to climb in the trunk of a car until their anxiety is overwhelming. Barlow, unlike other therapists, believes that curing pathological disorders shouldn't always be comfortable. In fact, sometimes it should be uncomfortable because the real world is uncomfortable and unpredictable.

Critics of Barlow call his techniques tortuous and unethical. But if Barlow claims he can eliminate the anxiety of 85 percent of his patients in as little as 12 weeks, why should he be criticized? At the very least, Barlow is discovering critical therapeutic techniques. He's increasing the knowledge of science. Reality TV intentionally makes people miserable solely to entertain others. Where's the justice in this?

As it stands now, psychologists and sociologists who have mildly unethical experiments that may provide crucial information have a hard time getting approved by the Office for Human Research Protections because unethical experimentation can lead to litigious action. Instead of appealing to the Internal Review Board of the OHRP, scientists with ingenious experiments of a polemic nature may be forced to pitch their idea to one of the networks instead of the scientific community because the regulations are obviously looser for television.

Hypothetically, the IRB wouldn't approve an experiment designed to test the limits of human greed in relation to the consumption of bile, roaches, grubs and coagulated blood, but NBC already has. It's called "Fear Factor."