When is it OK for economists to experiment on people? - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT商学院

When is it OK for economists to experiment on people?

A recent study has raised ethical questions about research

While most economic debates are about as spicy as boiled potatoes, others generate a bit more heat. A recent stir fell into the second category, in response to a new study of junior academics angling for jobs in economics. Participants knew they were part of an experiment, but not that some would get more social media promotion from “influencers” than others. (Economics influencers that is — Kylie Jenner does not care about your robustness checks.)

Cue outrage, sprinkled with some snark. One observer commented on the cruelty of letting “a coin toss determine who wins, and who is doomed to a career in academia”. More seriously, how do economists weigh up the ethics of human experiments?

There are formal processes to stop research investigating whether punching people in the face causes pain. American academics have to submit studies involving human subjects to ethical review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and often local boards when their work is on people in other countries. Europeans have been slower to implement their own processes, but they are catching up.

Researchers are generally supposed to avoid knowingly doing harm. They should also ask participants for informed consent, though not if the risks are minimal and telling people would muck up the results. (“Please take part in our study of sexism . . . now would you hire this woman?”)

When it comes to work in developing countries, it might seem unfair to allocate poverty-busting interventions randomly, rather than doling them out to everyone who might benefit. The justification economists usually offer is that when budgets are tight and universal coverage isn’t possible at least at first, there is value in rolling out a programme in such a way that it can be evaluated rigorously and improve policymaking.

The power of randomisation could even expand the set of risks researchers can take. One pair of economists wrote in 2014 that although researchers should minimise risk wherever possible, “the more likely a research project is to be able to answer a question in an unbiased way, and the more important that question is to designing more effective policy . . . the more risk it is acceptable to take”.

The past five years have seen an uptick in discussion of ethics within economics research, partly in response to a controversial study published in 2020. That examined whether cutting off some slum-dwellers’ water supply would increase the share of bills paid on time. (It did.)

One group of academics later proposed that papers should come with “ethics appendices” setting out in more detail how the authors dealt with any thorny issues. That could include a discussion of the researchers’ role in the design and implementation of a policy being evaluated to make it clear where ethical responsibilities lie.

It could also cover any holes in the IRB process, such as the effect of an intervention on non-participants. What if a cash transfer led to recipients bidding up prices, harming others? Although ethics appendices are not yet the norm, some funders are pushing for more information. Sarah Kopper, associate director of research at the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, says that now applicants for the organisation’s funding have to outline any risks posed to the broader population as well as research staff.

Returning to the economics jobs study, Douglas MacKay of the University of North Carolina says that it raises interesting ethical questions. Does intervening in the job market, a highly fraught process, truly carry “minimal risk” to the participants? If it is a zero-sum competition, then giving some candidates a leg up will mean crushing others’ dreams. And if the risk was more than minimal, the lack of fully informed consent from participants could be dubious.

Alvin Roth, one of the authors of that experiment, says: “I can’t imagine economists thinking of a market as zero sum.” Perhaps a social media post could alert someone to a candidate so impressive that they persuade their university to make an extra position available. He points out that plenty of people share papers on social media, adding: “It seems to me that things that aren’t unethical to do shouldn’t be unethical to study to find out their effect.”

Although we might like to think of economics as a meritocracy, it is possible that, left to their own devices, influencers will just promote their pals or their pals’ students. The authors suggested that their randomisation allocated attention “more equitably”. As so much of economics involves careful thinking about counterfactuals, no wonder they matter in the ethics of the subject too.

soumaya.keynes@ft.com

Follow Soumaya Keynes with myFT and on X

The Economics Show with Soumaya Keynes is a new podcast from the FT bringing listeners a deeper understanding of the most complex global economic issues in easy-to-digest weekly episodes

Listen to new episodes every Monday on AppleSpotifyPocket Casts or wherever you get your podcasts

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

美国不再有羞耻感了吗?

卢斯:美国政客面对丑闻的厚颜无耻是这个时代的一大特征。

瑞士财富管理公司将目光投向亚洲

瑞士作为世界财富管理中心的声誉近年来受到了打击,但瑞士财富管理公司仍可在其竞争对手香港和新加坡占据主导地位。

加拿大-印度外交对峙背后的印度犯罪帮派

31岁的比什努瓦是印度小报的话题常客,他在被指控从狱中策划勒索、谋杀和其他罪行。

Lex专栏:美国人对信用卡的钟爱削弱了即时支付的吸引力

尽管即时支付在一些国家大行其道,但在美国,Visa和万事达卡现在依然可以放宽心。

抢购西方资产的俄罗斯发胶巨头

阿列克谢•萨加尔是受益于西方公司撤离俄罗斯市场的新一代商人之一。

拥有多少钱才算是一名超级富豪?

是1000万美元、3000万美元,还是1亿美元?亿万富翁的迅速崛起颠覆了有钱精英的定义。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×