That's fair, you're right. I should have been less inflammatory. This story struck a chord in me for... reasons. That's not meant as an excuse, I should have known better to have taken a step back before I said anything, especially something that could escalate tensions. Thank you for killing the comment. I'll be more mindful of it going forward.
> Responses to the study have been overwhelmingly positive
7 days ago my response to this study included that the "vague legal threat at the end of your mail is immoral and gross". I guess he considered that a positive.
Sure, after all he is studying public policy on technology. Maybe from his perspective it is very interesting and useful for his research to see this response. Scaring the crap out of people over compliance with technology-related laws would seem to have some bearing on understanding the role of public policy. Of course it crosses into human research, so it's unethical since he did not have approval for that.
Is the point to get money or stop this from happening again?
If it’s the latter, I wonder if it would be more effective to bring this incident (and the apparent ineffectiveness of Princeton’s IRB) to the attention of the NIH. I would think the prospect of putting all that grant money in jeopardy would cause people in high places to take notice.
I think the plaintiffs would be people who spent money reacting to the emails, and I suspect Princeton may be quick to take care of those expenses to avoid further action.
I personally didn’t incur any monetary costs, just a lot of unnecessary stress.
That tweet was sent out around and the time the project website was edited to immediately indicate the end of the study (instead of continuing it to the spring), and adding a FAQ that tries to dispel concerns about IRB approval and email address harvesting.
That makes it seem unlikely he was unaware of the negative responses to his study.
That is true, although I think it would still be a poor choice of words to say "overwhelmingly" without tempering that with a note about assuaging the fears of some few that misunderstood the nature of the communication. Assuming he was aware that some were stressed and involving legal council.
The "secret shopper" justification for not informing participants ahead of time about the study can only take him so far, and I don't think it was necessary here to begin with. His research is to determine the policies in place at target recipients' organizations, and that doesn't require secrecy. In fact that justification undermines the exemption status of the study: he expected that people may react differently if they thought it was a user vs. a research study.
