Hey Paul, I’ve been unable to post my final comment, I keep receiving the following error message:
“Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”.


Below I’ve included a link to the blog I tried to comment on as well as my comment. Hopefully this shouldn’t be a problem and can be marked as though it were a normal comment. However if this a problem, I would appreciate it if you could let me know by leaving a comment on this post. In the mean time I’ll have a look online to see if there are any solutions to this problem so that it won’t again. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.


Final Comment:


Hey there!

Overall I liked your blog. Short, sweet and straight to the point. 


The only point of disagreement I have, is your claim that ethics have created many restrictions over the years. You haven’t really provided any evidence for this, other than your claim that Milgram’s study would not have gained ethical approval by today’s standards. This relatively weak evidence considering replications have in fact been done, and one replication in 2007 successfully gained ethical approval[link below]. Considering that analyses have shown that 50-75% of published reports used deception(Adair, Duschenko & Lindsay,1985), I don’t really see how someone can suggest that ethics restrict research.

It also worth mentioning that just because a study doesn’t gain ethical approval, does not mean that the study wasn’t conducted. An example of this is Sheridan & King’s obedience study, in which they gave real electric shocks to a puppy. Despite not being officially published in a journal, the study has been cited at least 43 times in published studies and is relatively well known. This certainly raises the question of whether ethics boards actually have that much control over research practices?

All in all really nice blog.


Sheridan & King –
Milgram Replication –