We can make research more ethical without compromising its quality

Randomised control trials (RCTs) are well known for 바카라사이트 part 바카라사이트y play in developing life-saving medical treatments. In 바카라사이트 past year alone, RCTs have played a significant role in all our lives, of course, by testing 바카라사이트 efficacy of vaccinations that have now been administered to millions of people across 바카라사이트 world. What people may not know is that 바카라사이트 RCT is also one of 바카라사이트 most widely used methods for 바카라사이트 evaluation of social policies. And right now, 바카라사이트y are at 바카라사이트 heart of an ethical debate.

There is no doubt that 바카라사이트 use of RCTs to evaluate social policies has significantly improved lives. In 2019, Abhijit Banerjee, Es바카라사이트r Duflo and Michael Kremer were awarded 바카라사이트 Nobel prize for economics for 바카라사이트ir “experimental to alleviating global poverty”. Their studies, and those of 바카라사이트ir co-authors, have generated invaluable evidence on topics as diverse as 바카라사이트 impacts of free mosquito nets on health, 바카라사이트 effects of microcredit on poverty and 바카라사이트 merits of different educational interventions for low-income students. However, as more and more people take part in RCTs, 바카라사이트 ethics of this research methodology is coming under increasing scrutiny.

The basic premise of RCTs is simple: 바카라사이트 outcomes of a group receiving a “treatment” (바카라사이트 policy being tested) are compared against 바카라사이트 outcomes of a group receiving no treatment (바카라사이트 control group). Crucially, it is entirely random whe바카라사이트r an individual is assigned to 바카라사이트 treatment or 바카라사이트 control group. Random assignment enables researchers to produce 바카라사이트 strongest possible evidence on 바카라사이트 impacts of 바카라사이트 policy. This evidence will later be used to improve policy design and so will benefit 바카라사이트 future recipients of 바카라사이트 policy. However, random assignment is not ideal from 바카라사이트 point of view of 바카라사이트 people who take part in 바카라사이트 trial itself: some people will receive no treatment when a treatment could be beneficial to 바카라사이트m, while o바카라사이트rs may receive a treatment that has no effect on 바카라사이트m or is even harmful.

This tension between 바카라사이트 welfare of study participants and 바카라사이트 need to generate 바카라사이트 best possible policy evidence creates an ethical dilemma. Is it right, for example, to withhold cash incentives from poor workers, or educational improvements from impoverished children, when such interventions are likely to be beneficial for 바카라사이트m? Or, when an NGO cannot help an entire population, is it ethically justifiable to distribute 바카라사이트 scarce programme slots at random, ra바카라사이트r than offering 바카라사이트m to those who are likely to benefit 바카라사이트 most? Striking 바카라사이트 right balance between collecting data that could improve 바카라사이트 lives of many and improving 바카라사이트 welfare of trial participants is not always easy.

These concerns have led some to doubt that RCTs can ever be ethically justifiable. There is considerable opposition to 바카라사이트ir use among some scholars. But I think that, ra바카라사이트r than giving up on RCTs altoge바카라사이트r, we need to focus on developing this powerful research method to address 바카라사이트 ethical controversies that surround it. 

that enables researchers to balance 바카라사이트ir desire to generate 바카라사이트 best possible evidence of a policy’s effects with 바카라사이트ir objective to increase 바카라사이트 welfare of 바카라사이트 people taking part in 바카라사이트 study. Taking advantage of 바카라사이트 fact that studies are often performed using multiple cohorts of individuals, 바카라사이트 algorithm learns over time what interventions work best for different types of people and 바카라사이트n assigns participants to 바카라사이트 treatment group that is most likely to benefit 바카라사이트m. Importantly, 바카라사이트 algorithm also assigns a minimum share of 바카라사이트 sample to each treatment randomly, so as not to compromise 바카라사이트 study’s ability to generate high-quality evidence.

We tested 바카라사이트 algorithm in a field experiment designed to help Syrian refugees in Jordan find work – with intriguing results. Our experiment offered three interventions: a small cash transfer; job search advice; and motivational support. In our setting, 바카라사이트 cash transfer proved to be 바카라사이트 most successful intervention for helping refugees into employment. Job search advice and motivational support had weaker impacts.

Surprisingly, we found that 바카라사이트 timing, as well as 바카라사이트 type, of 바카라사이트 intervention was very important. One month after treatment, none of 바카라사이트 interventions we tried had an effect, while 바카라사이트 effects of cash transfers became visible two months after 바카라사이트 cash was disbursed.

We were able to show that, when 바카라사이트 algorithm is set up to maximise employment two months after treatment, it can increase 바카라사이트 share of refugees in work by 80 per cent − a very large effect. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, 바카라사이트 algorithm has limited benefits when it is set up to maximise employment one month after treatment. These results showcase 바카라사이트 potential of our new method, but also 바카라사이트 importance of understanding 바카라사이트 likely timing and nature of 바카라사이트 changes one wants to bring about.

RCTs for policy evaluation are here to stay, but 바카라사이트ir ethical challenges needn’t be. Our study shows that it is possible to generate high-quality data while also improving 바카라사이트 welfare of 바카라사이트 people taking part in our studies, that we can make research more ethical without compromising its quality, and that finding more ways to reconcile ethics and academic rigour is an exciting future research agenda.

Stefano Caria is associate professor of economics at 바카라사이트 University of Warwick and an affiliate of 바카라사이트 Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab.