Like many people , I use Facebook to keep up with friends about all kinds of things -- deaths , births , the latest fads , jokes . So I was disturbed to learn about an article , `` Experimental Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks '' published last week in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science ( PNAS ) . Facebook had subjected nearly 700,000 users in an experiment without their knowledge , manipulating these individuals ' news feeds , reducing positive or negative content , and examining the emotions of these individuals ' subsequent posts . Facebook essentially sought to manipulate people 's mood . This is not a trivial undertaking . What if a depressed person became more depressed ? Facebook says that the effect was n't large , but it was large enough for the authors to publish the study in a major science journal . This experiment is scandalous and violates accepted research ethics . In 1974 , following revelations of ethical violations in the Tuskegee Syphilis study , Congress passed the National Research Act . At Tuskegee , researchers followed African-American men with syphilis for decades and did not tell the subjects when penicillin became available as an effective treatment . The researchers feared that the subjects , if informed , would take the drug and be cured , ending the experiment . Public outcry led to federal regulations governing research on humans , requiring informed consent . These rules pertain , by law , to all studies conducted using federal funds , but have been extended by essentially all universities and pharmaceutical and biotech companies in this country to cover all research on humans , becoming the universally-accepted standard . According to these regulations , all research must respect the rights of individual research subjects , and scientific investigators must therefore explain to participants the purposes of the study , describe the procedures ( and which of these are experimental ) and `` any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts . '' Facebook followed none of these mandates . The company has argued that the study was permissible because the website 's data use policy states , `` we may use the information we receive about you ... for internal operations , including troubleshooting , data analysis , testing , research and service improvement , '' and that `` we may make friend suggestions , pick stories for your News Feed or suggest people to tag in photos . '' But while the company is not legally required to follow this law , two of the study 's three authors are affiliated with universities -- Cornell and the University of California at San Francisco -- that publicly uphold this standard . The National Research Act led to the establishment of local research ethics committees , known as Institutional Review Boards ( or IRBs ) , which can waive the informed consent requirement in certain instances , provided , `` whenever appropriate , the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation '' -- that is , researchers should `` debrief '' the participants afterwards . Such a debriefing apparently did not occur here , but easily could have . Facebook said it reviewed the research internally , but there is no evidence that that review was by an IRB or met the standards of the federal regulations . Moreover , the journal , PNAS , mandates that `` all experiments have been conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki , '' which also dictates that subjects be informed of the study 's `` aims , methods ... and the discomfort it may entail . '' The lead author , Adam Kramer , apologized on Facebook , writing , `` my coauthors and I are very sorry for the way the paper described the research and any anxiety it caused . '' But that statement falls far short . The problem is not only how the study was described , but how it was conducted . Many researchers try to avoid having to obtain appropriate informed consent , since they worry that potential subjects , if asked , would refuse to participate . Pharmaceutical , insurance and Internet companies and others are increasingly studying us , acquiring massive amounts of data about us -- about not only our Internet use , but our genomes and medical records . Many medical centers are building enormous biobanks . Countless websites now examine our behavior online . They ask us to scroll down and click `` I accept , '' assuming we 're unlikely to read the dense legalese and simply accept their terms . In July 2011 , President Obama released proposals to improve the current system of oversight on human research . The federal Office of Human Research Protections received public comments for a few months but appears to have put this on the back burner . Social scientists have complained that the current regulations are onerous and that their research should be excused from IRB review . The current system is overly bureaucratic and needs reform . But as this controversial Facebook experiment suggests , it should not be scrapped . Good experiments benefit society . But in their zeal to conduct research , some social scientists overlook how their studies may impinge on people 's rights . As the amount of research on humans continues to grow , more violations will probably occur . We should try to avoid as much as possible becoming human guinea pigs .
Facebook conducted a study on nearly 700,000 users by manipulating their news feeds . Robert Klitzman : Facebook basically tried to alter people 's mood without their knowledge . He says despite Facebook 's user policy , this study violates accepted research ethics . Klitzman : We should try to avoid as much as possible becoming human guinea pigs .