The Cost of Coercion in Research Ethics

4min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

The idea that if you pay someone too much, then the payment is coercive doesn't make any sense. We can just pay people to do things that are unpleasant and leave them better off because the money is more important than like the bad thing that happened to them in the research. I don't think we need to violate people's rights or consent or well-being in order to get important research done. Especially if they're doing it for the good of society right now.

What are the best strategies for improving ourselves? How are line managers useful? Why does Rob prefer long-form content for the 80,000 Hours podcast? What are the sorts of things humans value and why? In what ways do research ethics considerations fail to achieve their stated objectives? Why are prediction markets useful?

Rob Wiblin is the Head of Research at 80,000 Hours where he investigates how people can do more good in the course of their career and produces a long-form interview show called the 80,000 Hours Podcast. He studied genetics and economics in Australia before moving to the UK to help develop the emerging field of effective altruism. You can learn more about Rob at robwiblin.com, learn more about his research work at 80000hours.org, and follow him on social media at @robertwiblin.

Staff