How do I respond to the following in at least two hundred words addressing any of the following

• What is the paper's thesis?
• Do you agree with the paper's main points? Are there some sources the author could have used to support his or her points more?
• Do you disagree with any part of the paper, could you play devil's advocate? If so, what sources would you quote to counter the paper's argument?
• Do you feel like the paper was misreading the points of any of the authors or taking them too much out of context?
• Did the author properly set up the debate? Did the author leave out any voices he or she might want to address?
• Did you feel lost in the paper at any time? If so, what did you find confusing?
• Are there any questions about the paper's argument that popped into your mind that you thought the paper could address?
• Did the paper feel organized? Did you feel guided through the paper or did it feel like you had to figure out where it was going?
• What parts of the argument did you feel were the strongest?
• Do the introduction and conclusion do the job they are supposed to do?

Few psychologists can claim a legacy like Stanley Milgram. Milgram's research experiments on obedience dramatically impacted the future of psychology and research ethics. The studies are regarded as extremely influential both then and now. In "The Power of the Situation," researchers Ludy T. Benjamin Jr and Jeffry A. Simpson detail the Milgram experiments based on history, real-world parallels, and the effects on psychological research fields since the research publication. The article describes the difference of research studies today under the new ethical regulations established as a result of high-impact studies like Milgram's. The obedience experiments also paved the way for future social psychological studies to incorporate more realism and move away from primarily lab-based research settings. This shift of "studying people in their natural lives and environments may be one of the most important legacies" that ethics boards have been responsible for (Benjamin 2009). It is clear that the Milgram experiments were incredibly influential and sparked many changes to how modern-day research is now conducted, however we need to focus on why this research prompted the establishment of ethical review boards. Critics have branded Milgram's work with three common descriptors: highly influential, impactful, and unethical. Following a series of controversial and popularized psychological experiments, ethical regulations were enacted throughout the spheres of social and psychological research (Yanow, 2018). To prevent studies such as the Milgram experiments from being conducted today, it is necessary to maintain Research Ethics Boards (REBs) and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to protect human subjects and preserve the integrity of psychological research studies.

Although high-impact studies like Milgram's obedience studies produce dramatic results, the research proposals need to be thoroughly reviewed to protect the integrity of the data collected. Time and time again analysts reference the results of Milgram's experiments to build a foundational support for psychological research papers (McArthur, 2009). However, YU philosopher professor Dan McArthur challenges such papers by stating "what has not been considered...is that the ethical problems with the experiments might have had an impact on the soundness or strength of the results." If the research used as keynote evidence on the effects of pressures and blind obedience on human psychology is actually unscientific, the value of the conclusion disappears. Now where do the ethical problems lie in this study? According to the Canadian Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics, the principles of present-day REBs are based on respect for human dignity, respect for free and informed consent, and a principle of minimizing harm (McArthur, 2009). Following the publication of his findings, Milgram claimed to have predicted an early withdrawal of consent for almost all of the participants. However, we can predict with some accuracy that there is some manipulation in the research procedure. For example, in a portion of the experiments the shock recipient requests and even begs to leave the experiment but the examiner refuses (McArthur, 2009). This dialogue implies that there is a variable lack of consent for one of the parties in the test. The ambiguity of the situation would in turn pressure the subjects to involuntarily stay in the experiment. Therefore, participants act much differently than they would have if they had known they could withdraw. As a result, deception-induced behavioral changes ultimately invalidate the results of the study because it interferes with the respect for free and informed consent. It is impossible to justify the benevolence of Milgram's experiments because the integrity of the research model itself is controversial.

Similarly, researchers commonly argue against the validity of IRBs and REBs claiming that they do not provide any additional protections for the integrity of projects (Chastain, 1999). Institutions and government projects require each research model to undergo an ethics review by their appointed boards.BSU's Professor of Psychology Garvin Chastain conducted a study to review the working relationships of IRBs and their researchers at various institutions. Chastain spoke against the claim, instead stating that "problems with approval of a research protocol are much more likely to stem from IRB concerns about the welfare or rights of participants than from criticisms of the scientific merit or social benefits of the project." This does not discount any inconsistencies or problems at specific institutions. Instead, evaluating the timeframe that it usually takes from the submission of a research model to its approval does shed light on whether the scale of significance does play a role in the review process. "Although serious in their mission, IRBs are sympathetic to researchers and strive to be constructive rather than obstructive" (Chastain, 1999). The criticisms previously considered in the risk-reward ratio between knowledge and ethics may be a very small margin, as IRBs are not designed nor do they strive to hinder the scientific benefits during the review process. Although IRBs may be bothersome towards student researchers that usually deal with harsh deadlines, ethics review is an absolute necessity to protect human subjects. To ignore proper precautions, researchers would not be able to guarantee that the participants have safeguards and limits for their own safety. Ethics review may seem like it would be too obvious and tedious for researchers in the scope of scientific research, however it is important to remember experiments that were allowed to be conducted previously such as the work of Stanley Milgram.

While discussing the effect of ethic review boards on research models, it may be important to consider potential revisions to potentially expedite the review process or even change the model itself to be more catered to the researchers. This is the essence of the "ethics creep", a concept first introduced by Kevin D. Haggerty, a Killam Research Laureate and Tier I Canada Research Chair. In "Resisting the seduction of "ethics creep" by Dr. Adrian Guta et al., the concept is introduced with a recent surge of academic interest, as the reach of ethics review expands in the general academic setting. Guta addresses the increasing amount of criticisms towards IRBs and REBs as well as the possible changes that are proposed in lieu of certain ethical regulations. Addressing these proposals, Guta claims that "...when academics advocate for one conception of ethics over another (e.g., disciplinary vs. institutional review), they are simply choosing a form of regulation that privileges certain goals and interests." Although establishing different IRBs specialized to certain categories of studies may make sense at first, academics that generally speak out against ethics boards and aim to change the process to be more favorable towards the researchers are actually looking towards their own self-interests. REBs/IRBs exist as middlemen between institutions and the research itself, protecting both parties. This divide between the institutions and the researchers seems to be made up of the constraints of bureaucracy, however "this ignores that most reviewers are researchers and that many researchers will end up sitting on an REB/IRB at some point" (Guta, 2013). If most seats on REBs and IRBs are/were researchers themselves, there is no reason to believe the previous accusations that the reviewers do not understand the research fields or even that ethics reviews should be more lenient. There would be no mistake that experienced researchers will also be keeping the best interest of scientific review in the end.

In conclusion, ethical review boards are necessary to safeguard the integrity of psychological research studies as well as the safety of the human subjects involved. In response to the original argument in "The Power of the Situation," controversial research can not be defended with the theory of beneficence. This is to say that the pursuit of knowledge does not outweigh the potential harm caused by high-impact research cases like Milgram's studies on obedience. Ethnographer Dvora Yanow questions the regulation of social science research ethics in volume 19 of Qualitative Social Research, a journal for qualitative researchers. In Yanow's article, Yanow criticizes negative analyses of controversial high-impact studies, including Milgram's psychological experiments, stating "controversial as they may have been, these projects met a key ethics principle: "beneficence," something ignored by most of the critics assessing their work". This argument is similar to the risk-reward ratio. Is the potential reward of studies such as Milgram's worth the potential harm it could cause to its participants? We could potentially help millions at the expense of dozens of human test subjects. However, Yanow's argument is unsustainable when weighing in the other considerations addressed previously. For example, if the studies are indeed unethical and this invalidates integrity of the research model, there would be no question of beneficence. Sacrificing ethical guidelines for the sake of knowledge is not necessary to achieve results. Yanow's idealism expresses a false notion that the deception used to conduct controversial high-impact studies is minimal and truly necessary to the integrity of the study. As a result, the argument minimizes the significance of ethical ambiguity and its detriment to the scientific process. Also, it is not certain that there needs to be a degree of harm in these studies in order to gather significant findings. Upon review of ethics review boards, the actual interference on research models is minimal. If the removal of ethical safeguards would actually benefit humanity through unregulated psychological research, to what extent could we trade ethics for the pursuit of knowledge? Where would the line be drawn?