ISIS With A Silent I: Why Islam Must Take Responsibility For ISIS

20th November 2015 – Mali – 22 killed – Shooting

13^th November 2015 – France – 130 killed – Shooting

12^th November 2015 – Lebanon – 37 killed – Bombing

31^st October 2015 – Metrojet Flight 9268 – 224 killed – Bombing

10^th October 2015 – Turkey – 102 killed – Bombing

26^th June 2015 – Tunisia – 38 killed – Shooting

7^th January 2015 – France – 12 killed – Shooting

14^th April 2014 – Nigeria – 276 kidnapped

15^th April 2013 – USA – 5 killed – Bombing

July 2012 – Various – 50 killed – Violent protests in response to a rubbish film that denigrated Muhammad

30^th September 2005 – Various – 200 killed – Mass violent protests in response to the publication (in Denmark) of cartoons depicting Muhammad.

N.B. On the 14^th February 2015 the responsible cartoonist was allegedly targeted again in the Copenhagen shootings

7^th July 2005 – England – 52 killed – Bombing

11^th September 2001 – USA – 2977 killed

14^th February 1989 – Various – 37 killed – Ayatollah Khomeini (Supreme Leader of Iran) issues a fatwā calling for the assassination of Salman Rushdie having committed the crime of publishing a book that in one section re-narrates the life of Muhammad.

---

If the left can’t agree on Corbyn then they can certainly agree on these two things:

1. Islam is not responsible for any of the aforementioned atrocities
2. It is the West’s or the victim’s fault that these bad things have happened

This is not a new response and has in fact been argued for over 20 years. It was Salman Rushdie’s fault that he received a fatwā; he shouldn’t have written a book about Muhammad and insulted 1.6 billion Muslims. Similarly, if you were to keep in touch with the news over the past two weeks you would know that the real reason ISIS exists is because of European Islamophobia/Iraq/Afghanistan/Assad/political instability/economic desperation.

If we can be sure of anything, it is that Islam plays little to no part in the worldwide crisis we have before us. Right?

As Medhi Hasan puts it: “The so-called Islamic State is “Islamic” in the way the British National Party is “British” or the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK) is “democratic” … Why the willingness to believe the hype and rhetoric from the spin doctors and propagandists of ISIS?”

It is common knowledge that anyone who suggests that Islam might be the problem is simply another Islamophobe. Now while this unfortunately tends to be true (see Britain First, Donald Trump etc.), the original proposition that Islam must take some responsibility for ISIS should be entirely uncontroversial. It is clear that this would be a very different war if Islam did not exist, and it is plausible that any strategy focused on critiquing Islam itself could be effective in dissuading potential ISIS recruits.

Now, before I go any further.

Obviously the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. They do not want to destroy the West.

Obviously the demonisation of Muslims and the closure of our borders is not a solution. Most victims of ISIS are Muslims and it would be completely wrong to confuse these victims of terrorism with the perpetrators. It’s despicable how few refugees the UK are helping in this time of international crisis.

However, it is disingenuous for commentators on the left to repeatedly tell us that Islam is not at fault. We can no longer allow ourselves to call this genocidal caliphate ISIS with a silent I.

“How could a terror group like ISIS speak for 1.6 billion Muslims?”

Of course they can’t. By this logic there isn’t really anyone that can speak for all Muslims. But if 0.1% of all Muslims bought into radical Islam then you would have 1.6 million radicals. Note that this doesn’t necessarily mean 1.6 million active terrorists, but 1.6 million Islamists that support more violent literalist interpretations of Islam. 0.1% would still be a significantly concerning number of people that subscribed to dangerous and violent views. My point being that it does not matter that extremist groups do not represent the majority of Islam, if even a small percentage do adhere to extremist views then we all have reason to worry.

Unfortunately, according to an oft-quoted Pew survey (2013), 0.1% could be a gross underestimation. Having surveyed over 38,000 Muslims over 39 countries they found some rather troubling prevalent beliefs.* Here are a couple of points I want to highlight from the report.

While on first glance this graph appears to be reassuring (in the sense that there are only 4 countries where over a quarter of respondents think that suicide bombing is often/sometimes justified) note that 1% can still amount to a lot of people. Also notice that while the title says most Muslims state suicide bombing is not justified, the graph actually tells us that most Muslims think suicide bombing is never/RARELY justified. I believe that is quite different.*

It is important to remember that interpretations of Sharia can be quite varied, but let’s not forget that for some it can include: imprisonment for blasphemy, death for apostasy (leaving Islam), limited legal rights for women, imprisonment for homosexuality, and stoning for adultery. This is not an exhaustive list but should give you a flavour of what Sharia’s about.

There are in fact several countries that currently implement Sharia law.

In Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh you can be executed for blasphemy.

You can be punished in the UAE for adultery or pre-marital sex with flogging.

In Qatar the punishment for alcohol consumption or ‘illicit’ sexual relations is flogging.

“ISIS are not a religious movement, they are a political movement that uses religion”

The aforementioned examples of the implementation of Sharia law bring me to my next point. It is wrong to say that there is a disconnect between Islam and politics. They are interconnected and influence each other. At the very least Islam is helping to sustain political beliefs and legal systems that we in the West would consider primitive.

There is of course some truth in the complaint that there is something of a disconnect between some of the ISIS recruits and Islam. In fact, MI5 published in a report that many ISIS recruits had little knowledge of the Qur’an and one news story amusingly highlighted a couple of martyrs that saw fit to buy an “Islam for Dummies” book.**

Unfortunately, we are still left with the question of why does using Islam work? For their marketing strategy to be effective we have to assume that there are people out there that respond to their message, which is patently an Islamic message. ISIS are not searching for just anyone to fight for the nations of Syria and Iraq against the oppression of Assad and the West. They are searching for Muslims to fight for Muslims. This is not an issue of nationality, this is a matter of shared belief.

At this point we could consider whether this war is merely a symptom of the in-group versus out-group mentality that we are all born with. For some this condition is manifested by nationalism, for others by football rivalries, for past generations by Marxism, and for this generation of extremists by Islam. This is a powerful argument that is capable of explaining why people from different countries, raised in both the Middle-East and the West rally to a singular call to battle. Superficially, it also somewhat lets Islam off the hook as it suggests we are dealing with a psychological phenomenon that is not particular to Islam. This makes the next point more important. While it may be an eternal sickness of the human race that we feel we need to fight over group differences, it is essential that we find ways to weaken ideologies that lead to widespread violence. And it is much easier to critique the assumptions of Islam than it is Marxism. If you hold the atheist position that there is very little evidence for a god then it becomes much simpler to denigrate any violent ideology that is predicated on this belief.

“They do not preach REAL Islam”

This is exactly what ISIS say about all the good Muslims in the world. This complaint does not solve anything. It is brilliant that most Muslims choose to ignore the more vile sections of the Qur’an, but can we really be so alarmed that some Muslims have chosen to read them literally?

I’m personally a little surprised that everyone doesn’t take their religion literally. If I was told that there was a book in this world that was dictated/inspired by the creator of the universe and ultimate moral authority, and it contained rules I must follow in order to avoid an eternity (I’ll repeat for emphasis…ETERNITY) of pain/fire/boredom. I do not know on what grounds I would ignore any of the injunctions made in this book. But like I said, thank goodness people do!

The Qur’an doesn’t start well to be honest. Page 3 in my Qur’an has this gem:

“As for those that disbelieve, it does not matter if you warn them or not: they will not believe…They will have great torment.” (2:7)

It doesn’t get much better from there!

“God is the enemy of the unbelievers.” (2:98)

“Fighting is obligatory for you , much as you dis-like it . But you may hate a thing although it is good for you , and love a thing although it is bad for you . God knows, but you know not “ (2:216).

“Such are those that are damned by their own sins. They shall drink scalding water and be sternly punished for their unbelief” (6:70).

While I once again wish to re-iterate that most Muslims are peaceful and in no way are represented by these quotes in the Qur’an, it is a bit cheap to claim that Islam is the religion of peace and that it is a complete shock that anyone would find justification for violence in it.

ISIS and Creationism

If I have not convinced you that Islam is responsible for ISIS then allow me to phrase the debate another way. What if we were talking about Creationism?

Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life was created by God, and more specifically that human life began with Adam and Eve. We might not say that every Christian is a Creationist***, but nevertheless we can say that there are enough Creationists in the world spreading their beliefs to cause the science-minded of us to worry. There might be other factors than religion itself that predispose someone to becoming a creationist, for instance the environment that they are raised in. It may even be that they do not really believe but that the view is so prevalent in their community that it would be very socially costly to disavow Creationism. We would not say that biblical literacy is more likely to make you a Creationist, as the majority of Christian scholars do not subscribe to the view of pure Creationism. However, it would be very unusual if we asserted that Creationism had nothing to do with Christianity. That it was a perversion of Christianity. That most people don’t believe in it and that therefore there cannot be any link between the religion and the sincerely held erroneous belief.

It would be utterly bizarre if we didn’t at least consider the possibility that the way to stop the spread of Creationism was to critique Christianity itself.

The truth is that this is all very complicated. There isn’t one reason that people join ISIS and similar death cults.

Western warmongering played its part, economic instability may play its part****, Assad’s and Saddam’s sectarian genocidal dictatorship has undoubtedly played a massive part, but we are not being honest unless we admit that Islam has also played its role in the formation and sustaining of Islamic State.

We cannot deal with this crisis competently until we have an honest discussion about what makes this war so attractive to ISIS recruits. That discussion must involve the role of Islam and such a conversation would surely conclude that these militants are not fighting for Iraq, they are not fighting for Syria, they are fighting for Islam.

---

“We are not killers. We are defenders of the prophet, we don’t kill women. We kill no one. We defend the prophet. If someone offends the prophet then there is no problem, we can kill him. We don’t kill women. We are not like you. You are the ones killing women and children in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn’t us. We have an honour code in Islam.” 

Cherif Kouachi (Charlie Hebdo massacre)

“I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn’t come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.”

Mohammad Sidique Khan (7/7 bomber)

“It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam….It is the hatred of crusaders. Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people…We say that the end of the United States is imminent, whether Bin Laden or his followers are alive or dead, for the awakening of the Muslim umma (nation) has occurred”

Osama Bin Laden

---

* I’ve actually picked a Pew survey that is relatively favourable towards Muslims. Another Pew survey (2002) found much bleaker results.

The worst thing about this survey is that once again ‘No’ includes rarely justified. Taking Jordan as an example, if rarely justified was counted as ‘Yes’ then the line of percentages would read: 65 26 8.

I encourage everyone to read the full Pew report (2013) as it contains a lot of interesting information about modern Muslims. It’s not all doom and gloom, the report found that the majority of Muslims don’t think there is a tension between devout and non-devout Muslims; few Muslims believe that their faith is incompatible with modern society and science; there is also widespread support for democracy. My point in selecting the two examples I did was to suggest that there is clearly a strong link between classical Islamic beliefs and the modern Muslim’s belief in Sharia and (to a lesser extent) martyrdom.

** Though should we assume that increased academic knowledge of Islam relates to more sincere belief?

*** I mean this in the purest sense as presumably every Christian is a Creationist to some extent.

**** Sam Harris points out that Ahmed Omar Sheikh (who organised the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl) studied at London School of Economics, Hezbollah operatives that die in violent operations are less likely to be from a poor background and more likely to be educated to a secondary school level, and the leaders of Hamas are all college graduates. Therefore suggesting that belief is a more powerful motivator than socio-economic background. Though this should be clear to us by now as militants are being recruited to ISIS from all over the world.

Are Ethics Rubbish?

Hello nerdaphiles! How is it? Splendid.

This week, we’re going to discuss ethics! Woo…

Once upon a time there was a group of nasty people called the ‘nazis’. Among other things, these ‘nazis’ conducted inhumane experiments on the prisoners of their concentration camps; leading to death, disfigurement and disability. 

I’m aware this is a touchy subject but never fear, the nazis are gone…mostly. So here’s a picture of a cat to make everyone feel better.

Anyway, the goodies won and the nazis that committed these atrocities were put to trial, but what’s the point? These events led to the formulation of the Nuremberg Code (1947). Before then there had simply not been a discernible code of conduct for experimenting on humans. The Nuremberg Code particularly enunciated the need for voluntary informed consent, the need to weigh the pros of experimentation against the cons and the avoidance of suffering. This moulding of the post-World War II era was instrumental in balancing human rights and scientific endeavour. The Declaration of Helsinki (1974) built on the foundations of the Nuremberg Code to further refine the rules and most importantly to me (as a psychology student) has led to the formulation of the five general ethical principles of psychology, from which all other ethical rules sprout from. This is all well and good, there SHOULD be rules, especially in a field where someone fiddles with your brain. However, to me the ethical principles are not ALL sensible; they lead to problems and have the potential to hinder science. For the purposes of this blog I’m going to focus on principle A as, to be fair, I just find many of the other general principles to be too darn sensible to debate in an interesting way.

Lets have a look:

Principle A: Beneficience and Nonmaleficience

• Psychologists must safeguard the welfare and rights of both humans and animals

Safeguarding the welfare and rights of humans and animals is a given, right? No, I want to experiment on all of you and your pets in cruel ways. Just kidding… Or am I?!

Beginning with humans, how far can we go with our research before we break rights and damage the welfare of a person?

In the world of medicine the boundaries of how far you can push a person are perhaps more apparent, but in the new world of psychology, such boundaries seem blurred. Can you tell when you’ve upset someone? How about when you’ve upset someone too much? How about when you’ve upset someone to the lengths of being unethical? Do these lines apply to everyone? Psychological processes are a tough enough thing to establish and measure without having ambiguous rules over how much harm you can dish out to a willing patient.

Could the safeguarding of people and animals be sciences loss?

Milgram’s experiment would not have happened had he wanted to do the experiment today, this would have denied us all the knowledge that under certain conditions people can be coerced into being killers. Naysayers may suggest that this would have come out anyway, however, Milgram found through a poll that senior psychology-majors thought that 1.2% of ‘teachers’ would inflict maximum voltage. So why would anyone do the research? Even if someone did decide to research this area no thought experiment is quite as good as pressing the KILL button. I should point out that several of the ‘teachers’ did endure psychological and in some cases physical damage, but follow-ups indicated these were not long-lasting.

SO should this experiment never have happened? The ‘participants’ at the time may have felt so, but have we as a scientific community gained from knowing that 65% on average (YES I KNOW IT’S ONLY ONE STUDY BUT IT’S STILL INTERESTING AND PERHAPS EVEN INDICATIVE) have the capability to kill when instructed. You may think that research like this is not useful to us as a society, nothing more than fancy trivia. But think how experiments like these expand our understanding of things, certain ‘unethical’ behaviourist experiments have led us to treatments which may not have been apparent had the research not been conducted in a world that thought all psychology was biological.

NOW animal rights, a hot topic with lots of potential for losing friends. Is it ethical to cut up a kitten? From a deontological point of you, no. But without animal research where would we be? Animal research has led us to countless discoveries, which have benefitted a huge amount of people. Here’s a pretty timeline to show you the scale of how much animals have helped us:

http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/your_health/timeline

We can all agree that in terms of psychological research animals already have less rights than us, seeing as humans are never (usually) imprisoned and killed. But does the fact that animals have no way to consent mean that we should automatically discount them as an experimental resource and should all testing be performed in vitro? Bateson formed the ‘decision cube’ to deal with the issue of pain versus certainty of scientific benefit, which really gets to the crux of the matter. Balances like this lead to less trials and less trials can only lead to decreased certainty, so is there any practical value in saying that animal pain is acceptable if you’re SURE that drug X will work? Deontologists among you readers may believe that animals have the same inherent value as humans, but ask yourselves:

Would you kill/psychologically damage 5000 animals to save 5000 humans?

Would you kill/psychologically damage 5000 animals to save 100 humans? (Yes, I realise that the amount of humans may actually be greater if we assume that drug X cures some kind of horrible disease, which would mean the ‘saving’ of unborn lives but stay with me!)

Would you maim/destroy your kitten to save your life?

Would you maim/destroy a fly to save your life?

These kinds of questions are fun and really test your moral fibre!

The fact is that animal research is very well controlled and that the ‘lowest life-forms’ are the ones to bite the bullet. Instinctively it is wrong to kill, but maybe it is just as wrong to passively allow people to die.

This is the longest blog ever and I’m deeply sorry about that, but ethics just riles me up so much that I want to vomit every thought in my little head on to the interweb.

Feel free to hate me.

Until the next time dedicated nerd-lingers!

Animal Research: A Necessary Evil?

Hello there bloglodytes! How are we? Sensational.

This week I’m going to return to the controversial topic of animal research. Avid fans among you may recall that I touched on this issue in a previous post, however, I have decided that the topic deserved a fuller entry. The animal research debate is among one of the most important of our time. Without it, the whole face of scientific research changes, we enter an epoch of exclusive human and in vitro testing. With it, surely the strength of the boundaries of ethical research will be tested; leading to debate around the methodology of animal testing, rather than the philosophy. In short, it is something that must be decided in order to prevent both the limiting of productive research and the potential allowance of dangerous research. So, are you okay with it?

PETA, as I’m sure many of you are aware, take a very absolutist stance. 5 minutes on their website will basically let you know what they’re about, no abuse of animals under any circumstances. I find the absolutist stance to be dangerous, to take any absolute view often reflects a lack of appreciation for the complexity of the situation. Whilst Gray argues that a lot of animal rights institutions are too focused on research whilst ignoring farming and pet ethics, PETA is very even-handed in its condemnation of animal injustice. One of the most dangerous aspects of PETA’s campaign is its ability to appeal to our emotions, occasionally at the expense of verifiable fact. A perusal of the references below will show you how this site, to the ends of heightening our emotions, makes unfounded claims ranging from the tear-jerking to the ridiculous. To give you a flavour, they claim that discoveries made via animals only translate to humans 25% of the time; whilst there is some truth in this, the article goes on to say that in some cases you may as well flip a coin; as stats students I’m sure your head is simply buzzing at this assertion. Furthermore they claim that animal research has hindered scientific progression, leading us astray with the polio vaccine and many other breakthroughs. The Royal Society confirmed this is simply not true, and that synthesising of the polio vaccine was largely thanks to experiments on mice and monkeys. Further arguments contest that these cures are tested on humans anyway, in vitro testing has a far greater efficacy, and that since the advent of animal testing the developed states are in fact worse off in terms of health. To both suggest that since we test on humans anyway and should skip the animal testing is ludicrous; and to further associate a decline in health-related statistics with an increase in animal testing is to trivialise the real issues. As for the in vitro argument, The Royal Society have argued that isolated testing of certain extracted cells simply does not give a clear enough picture of how treatments may affect complex organisms, asserting there is a far higher efficacy to be found in animal testing. There is a wealth of argument to be read out there, a lot of it on the PETA links I provide below and I urge you to read them; to either find your own flaws or possibly mine, but having actually read this absolutist, ‘altruistic’ site I can only conclude that though they carry the flag of morality, the arguments they employ are reductionistic.

Jeremy Bentham, philosopher and politician contested that ”The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” Newkirk argues, ”When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife”. These quotes reflect the heart of this argument, which is speciesism. Can we consider ourselves to decide the purpose of other animals based on appearance? Ryder (1990) describes this as “discrimination and exploitation based upon a difference in species”. Possibly dating back to an indirect clash of philosophies between Descartes and Darwin, the former likening animals to machines without souls, and the latter seeing humans as only quantitatively different from other species. Gray suggests that it is our responsibility to our own species to do our best to benefit it, even at the expense of others. Singer disagrees with this view and argues that speciesism is akin to racism as we discriminate based on a creature’s similarity to us. I believe this speciesism is reflected in scientific protocol with the hierarchy of animal testing, we are encouraged in our profession to use the ‘lowest life-form possible’. Though I must concur with Gray on this issue and assert that we are evolutionarily biased towards our species and it makes no sense to allow our own species to suffer so that we can limit the suffering of other species, I would suggest that Singer hit the nail on the head, so to speak with his point that animals do not require equal or identical treatment – but equal consideration.

An Ipsis Mori survey (2002) found that 90% of the general public were okay with animal research, suggesting that we are perhaps biased towards our own species. But does animal research really have great validity? The Royal Society have kindly laid out a comprehensive argument for the continuation of animal testing, which is well worth your time. In it they give three examples of how animal research has benefited the world, with regards to: the polio vaccine, kidney dialysis and transplants, and a possible future cure for cystic fibrosis. The success of animal testing must surely be testament to the fact that although animal testing does not always translate to human response, it is capable of changing lives. Now let us consider psychological research, would the birth of behaviourism occurred (Pavlov; Skinner)? Would we know that lack of sleep, and increased stress kills (Jouvet, 1967; Brady, 1958; Warren & Marshall, 1983)? And would we know how important the mother is to a child’s personal development (Harlow, 1958)? Imagine the research that may have been lost, not to mention the research that sprung from these seeds, would we be where we are today without them? Would scientific development be retarded? Whether it was ethical or not we cannot dispute that science would have been worse off, perhaps it could be contested that our societal welfare would also be poorer without these scientific discoveries.

So I shall wrap up! Take this blog as an exploration of what this debate means for the future, and why I think that animal experimentation is essential to scientific progression. Though the rights of animals must be considered and debated so as to ensure the optimum crossover between animal safety and scientific progression; we must not fall into the trap of thinking that animal rights are more important than our own. Singer said himself that if he were to see a human and a lion fighting, he would shoot the lion; rationalising that a man has a malleable future, whilst the lion could only live for the moment. My rationale is rather more simple, I cannot justify to myself that it is any worse to actively harm animals than it is to passively allow people to die because we do not do everything possible to help them.

Are Some Subjects Beyond Research?

Greetings blogging masses! How are you today? Bully.

Today, I will be discussing socially-sensitive research. Is it to the detriment of society that we pursue potentially divisive research? Should the truth be regarded as more important than maintaining the equilibrium of the common man? Confucius suggested that, “the object of the superior man is truth.” This is a view, historically, that man has provided evidence for since the very first human scientist left his cave. As humans  it is our natural inclination to investigate and understand the truths of the world around us, whether we look to the heavens for answer from a celestial being or under a microscope. As scientists, though we are obliged to maintain a level of humbleness in saying that we can never find the truth; we nevertheless still go looking for it. But as psychologists are we further obligated to not delve too far into the forest of truth and eke out every morsel of truth we can find? According to Kuhn, the truth is subject to potential paradigm shifts; yesterday’s truth may be tomorrow’s untruth, can we really conduct divisive research knowing that it may merely be apparently true? As Oscar Wilde said, “the truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Psychological research generally puts three types of people at risk: the participant, the researcher (and the body of psychology that he represents), and society. Historically, studies (including a study conducted by the APA) have led to the concession that there is a 15 point IQ gap between white and black people. These studies have led to inhumane real-world changes, including mounting arguments for eugenics and an attempt in the ’50s by the US Board of Education to segregate students. As time has gone on scientists have grown to understand that this is not necessarily a hereditary fault, but potentially a poor learning environment, possibly as a result of low socio-economic status. There is little more dangerous in this world than a divisive opinion shared loudly. James Watson, Nobel laureate in biology, put forward his view that low average intelligence was a cause for poverty in Africa. Spokesmen like this place seemingly credible blame on certain groups of people, leading to further ‘scientifically-based’ movements ranging from the ridiculous to the irresponsible. Rushton (1990) suggested that black people had smaller brains and therefore lower intelligence. Trivia fans among you may know that Einstein had a below average sized brain. Levin (1990) believed that no attempt should be made to aid black people in terms of intelligence, deeming it pointless. Studies like this perpetuate a negative stereotype that can only fuel negative actions towards a minority, as seen in numerous eugenics movements. Is it our right to investigate an area that may unearth some dirty cultural laundry? As humanists, do we owe it to the individual that we do not seek any truth that may put them in a disadvantageous position? Kelman (1965) suggests that knowledge is “ethically neutral”, but this is far from a popular view.

Put yourself in the position of a students administrator.

As a charming, attractive, logical person; you would no doubt agree that you are above prejudice and would pick someone for a  position based on salient information. Now, you are faced with a decision. You can offer one PhD place to one of  these prospective students – one is black, one is white and they have similar qualifications. As a learned administrator (in this completely hypothetical scenario), you know that the weight of research has demonstrably indicated that intelligence and academic potential is  completely rooted in genetics. Unfortunate evolutionary circumstances have meant that white people have got the weaker genetics and in general have less potential than black people. SO, who do you employ? Do you provoke the rage of an entire ethnicity by siding with the aforementioned COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL objective truth/fact/whatever, or do you take the side of humanism and offer the position based on presumably superficial, (HYPOTHETICALLY) archaic perceptions of equality?

Though you may not be sure on whether the search for truth is > societal equilibrium, you can play it safe by taking the advice of Sieber and Stanley (1988). They suggest 10 ethical issues that a researcher must keep in mind when conducting socially sensitive research:

• Privacy
• Confidentiality
• Sound & Valid Methodology
• Deception
• Informed Consent
• Justice & Equitable Treatment
• Scientific Freedom
• Ownership of Data
• The values of social scientists
• Cost/Benefit Analysis

I understand that I have mainly focused on race but socially-sensitive research is rife throughout psychology’s history. Investigating issues such as gender differences and sexuality, the literature is huge and well worth a read. I believe these types of questions must be debated and ultimately decided upon. Whether your values are based in the attainment of intrinsic truths, potentially leading to a future where we do not deter ourselves from research for risk of offence; or your values may be based in the maintaining of indiscriminate equality, leading to a world where we live in happy ignorance. I hope that my writing has not implied any bias as I am not sure what I think yet. All I believe is that it is right to be cautious in deciding this matter,but recognise that it is a matter that psychology is ignoring at the detriment of both science and humanism. As Brown (1997) put it, “as long as research ethics avoid the matter of whether certain questions ethically cannot be asked, psychology will conduct technically ethical research that violates a more general ethic of avoiding harm to vulnerable populations.”