Ethical Restrictions in Human Sciences, Lesson 1

Lesson 1: Opening Debate

Focus: Do ethical restrictions limit the progress of human sciences?

Suggested Length: 1 hour

Learning Objectives:

Analyze how human sciences (psychology, data science, behavioral economics) are used to manipulate behavior.
Evaluate how corporations, governments, and institutions exercise power through human sciences.
Reflect on whether ethical responsibility strengthens or weakens human sciences in the digital age.

Critical Thinking Concepts	TOK Concepts	Reflection Questions
Confronting Biases & Assumptions: Reflect on the assumption that gaining knowledge is always worth the cost, and questioning who benefits when ethics are sidelined. Exploring Contexts: Consider who benefits or is harmed when ethical standards are applied or ignored. Responsiveness and Flexibility of Thought: Weigh how different approaches to research ethics shape what we consider valid or responsible knowledge.	Responsibility: What duties do human scientists have toward their participants and the societies affected by their research? Power: How do power dynamics influence what kinds of research are permitted or suppressed? Perspective: How do cultural, historical, and societal viewpoints shape what is considered acceptable research?	Can unethical research ever be justified by its results? Who should bear responsibility for protecting participants — researchers, governments, or communities? How does perspective (Western vs. non-Western, corporate vs. academic) change what is seen as ethical? How do power structures influence what research questions get asked, funded, or silenced?

Slides, attached below.
Log into Kialo and clone the linked discussion in the main activity to make a copy for your students.
Use your preferred sharing method to share the cloned discussion with your students

Present the guiding question: “Do ethical restrictions limit the progress of human sciences?”

Responsibility: What duties do researchers have toward participants, society, and future generations?
Power: Who has authority to decide what is ethical — researchers, governments, corporations, or communities?
Perspective: How do cultural, historical, and societal contexts shape what is considered ethical?

Show a short slideshow of notable scientific developments:

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932–72): Black men denied treatment in the U.S. to “study” disease progression.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971): Psychological harm inflicted in the name of research.
Cambridge Analytica (2016): Behavioral psychology + Facebook data used to manipulate elections.
AI and Algorithmic Bias: Predictive policing and hiring algorithms reinforcing discrimination.
Global Happiness Indexes: Whose definition of “wellbeing” is used to measure societies?
Cross-cultural research ethics: Tension between Western ethics boards vs. local traditions (e.g., consent in collectivist cultures).

Ask students to consider:

Debate Setup

Students will respond to the thesis: “Ethical restrictions limit the progress of human sciences.”

Give students time to examine the starter claims, based on the points below.

Starter Claim 1: Human sciences need freedom from ethical restrictions to discover truths about human behavior.

PRO: Experiments that would be considered unethical today revealed deep insights about authority and obedience.
Counterclaim (Responsibility): Causing lasting trauma for a science investigation undermines the legitimacy of the knowledge gained.
Reasoning Question: Can knowledge be valid if it is produced by harming participants?

Starter Claim 2: Ethical restrictions in human sciences slow progress compared to natural sciences.

PRO: Strict ethical review boards stop bold, groundbreaking studies that would advance human science.
Counterclaim (Perspective): Ethics ensure human sciences reflect human values — without them, findings lose credibility.
Reasoning Question: Is slower progress acceptable if it protects dignity and rights?

Starter Claim 3: Ensuring research is ethical builds trust and long-term reliability in human sciences.

PRO: Societies place greater trust in findings when participants are protected (e.g., medical consent reforms after the Nuremberg trials).
Counterclaim (Skepticism): Public trust does not automatically equal scientific accuracy as ethically approved studies can still be flawed, biased, or irrelevant.
Reasoning Question: Is ethical responsibility truly the same as reliability, or just a social perception of legitimacy?

Starter Claim 4: Ethical restrictions provide consistency across cultures, which strengthens rather than limits human sciences.

PRO: Universal ethical standards (e.g., informed consent, avoiding harm) create a common baseline of fairness, making research findings more globally valid.
Counterclaim: Western frameworks often dominate, sidelining local norms of consent and community participation.
Reasoning Question: Should ethics be universal, or adapted to cultural perspectives?

Debate

Students present arguments and counterarguments, citing real-world cases (Tuskegee, Stanford Prison, Cambridge Analytica, algorithmic bias).

Teacher guiding prompts:

Should results from unethical studies (e.g., Tuskegee data) ever be used?
Are ethics absolute, or can they change depending on culture or context?
Do corporations (Facebook, Google) have too much power over research ethics?
Is “progress” without responsibility actually regress?
How do the TOK concepts of responsibility, perspective, and power help us evaluate these dilemmas?

Discuss the following reflection questions in open discussion or exit ticket format:

Did ethics in these cases strengthen or weaken the reliability of knowledge?
Can unethical research ever be justified by its results?
Who should bear responsibility for protecting participants — researchers, governments, or communities?
How does perspective (Western vs. non-Western, corporate vs. academic) change what is seen as ethical?
How do power structures influence what research questions get asked, funded, or silenced?