The Cornell researcher who helped lead a controversial Facebook experiment has broken his silence, saying he never realized that people would be upset at learning their News Feeds were altered – without their consent – to see if it made them happy or sad.
In an interview with the New York Times, social scientist Jeffrey Hancock also said he now realizes there need to be clearer ethical guidelines for scientific research, like the recent Facebook emotion-tracking study, that taps into the vast amounts of data that Internet users share with Facebook and other online services.
“This is a giant societal conversation that needs to take place,” Hancock told the Times’ Vindu Goel, adding that he plans to work with other academic and corporate researchers to develop better guidelines for future research. Facebook, which has apologized for “poor communication” about the recent project, says it’s also examining ways to improve its research efforts.
As we’ve reported before, Internet companies routinely conduct all kinds of tests to see how users react to new services or different versions of the same product. But there is a big gap between private industry standards and the stricter ethical rules imposed on academic and medical research, where scientists have long wrestled with the risk of doing harm to study subjects.
Federal rules require academic researchers to explain any risks of harm to research subjects and obtain their informed consent. Private company researchers generally aren’t covered by those rules unless they receive public funding or seek FDA certification.
While critics have been adamant in saying the Facebook experiment was mishandled, others say the federal rules weren’t designed for the kind of data that can be gathered online. Researchers at Stanford, MIT and Microsoft are planning to convene panels to explore the issue in coming months.
Hancock told the Times that new rules should be “effective, lightweight, quick and accountable” – perhaps including an opt-in process for projects that significantly alter a user’s online experience, and an after-the-fact notification for smaller tests.
“This is a new era,” Hancock said. “I liken it a little bit to when chemistry got the microscope.”
