First of all, I'd like to thank the people who commented on this post (and indeed all the others!), and apologise for being a slow respondent. I'm not sure I quite have the dash to be an ace blogger ...
Re Alexandra G. Venema's question about whether I got an answer from the BPS, no, Alexandra, I didn't. My post was indeed a request for information. It wasn't intended as criticism, nor as expressing my point of view on research ethics. I can't recall seeing any output from the BPS on this topic, and I certainly couldn't find any on their website. If anyone has any relevant info, I'd be grateful.
Re Neil Schipper's comments:
The Milgram and Zimbardo studies are famous in psychology in part because they helped to change the climate of research ethics. That change was towards less emotional impact on the volunteers who took part. Milgram's own report in his book Obedience to Authority notes that some (not all) participants showed "striking reactions of emotional strain ... Normal subjects do not tremble and sweat unless they are implicated in a deep and genuinely felt predicament."
You accuse me of 'prissiness'. If such it be, it isn't mine, but reflects modern research ethics. Evidence of enduring harm is not the only criterion involved; temporary distress and deceit are also considered. I daresay rites of passage can have benefits in terms of offering individuals the chance of moral insight -- and indeed, Milgram reports that some (not all) of his participants appear to have gained such insight -- but scientific experiments are designed primarily to provide benefits for the researchers (and hence the wider community), not moral guidance for the participants. The Milgram experiment was done long ago and has been widely replicated and reported, so the additional scientific benefit obtained from a television reconstruction seems likely to be small.
Suppose the experiment did provide some moral benefits to some participants. Does that outweigh the distress experienced by them, and by others who did not gain such benefits? Many highly educated people, some of them scientists, have become perpetrators of extreme cruelty. Would prior experience of participating in the Milgram obedience experiments have prevented them?
You might think the potential benefits outweigh the costs. In my experience research ethics committees think differently. Debate is ongoing; fine. TV, however, seems to have its own criteria. That's the question I was curious about: what are those criteria?
