An academic ethical review could have prevented the Cambridge Analytica breach

Author: The Conversation / Source: The Next Web

When the Facebook data of 50m users was collected by Cambridge academic Aleksandr Kogan, his actions reportedly came to the attention of colleagues who regarded his subsequent use of the data as unethical.

The university revealed that Kogan had unsuccessfully applied for ethics approval in 2015 to use data collected on behalf of GSR, a commercial enterprise he set up, for use in his academic research.

Новости СМИ2

He was reapplying for approval when Facebook requested that the data he had gathered be deleted. These applications are currently the focus of a freedom of information request.

Responses to the Cambridge Analytica controversy have suggested that the rights of Facebook users would have been protected if the research had indeed been carried out under the jurisdiction of a university regulatory regime.

Sanctioned university research has also been contrasted with what one of Kogan’s academic colleagues reportedly called a “‘get rich quick’ scheme” in an internal email. The implication is that the oversight of research ethics is a key part of what makes the work of academics different from that produced commercially – a civilizing of research practice that other professions may not always live up to.

Yet it is notable that ethical review is not often regarded so favorably within universities. The growing bureaucratization and regulation of research ethics within UK higher education institutions is seen by many as an unwelcome development. The requirement to obtain ethics approval is often regarded as a threat to academic autonomy and even as something sinister (“ethics creep”).

The ethical review process is seen as demanding because it requires researchers to submit details of their projects for scrutiny before recruiting participants or collecting data. In the case of projects that present minimal risk of harm, this may be a “light touch” review involving one or two peer reviewers. Or it might involve more intensive levels of scrutiny by a full research ethics committee.

It is underpinned by a concern with the protection of “human subjects” (a term that reflects the historical influence of medical research – with its experimental subjects – on the ethics review process).