Hi! Thanks for the interesting responses so far to the Great Ethical Disasters thread. Frank raised a very interesting point when he said he'd ' like to have some objectives, some scales linked to the objectives' before assessing if something is ethical. To this I'd say 'yes-exactly- but what kind of objectives would we be talking about? Is something ethical in terms of its OWN research objectives - or are there general objectives which apply to all studies? Do other people who are aware of the Rimm study think it's ethical/unethical - and, if so, why?? I also want to pick up on the debate started by David Silver who seems to be making a distinction between 'unethical research' and ' methodologically flawed' research. Personally i'd argue that while the use of an appropriate research methodology may seem morally neutral – in fact the way a research project is designed is crucial to its moral acceptability. If a research method doesn’t succeed in answering the question posed then it wastes resources – or if it gives incorrect data then bad theory or practice may be established. (Clare Foster in a book called The Ethics of Medical Research on Humans, 2001, argues this very well). In my opinion assessing the validity of data generated by the Internet is an ethical as well as a methodological challenge. Also, in a new research area like the Internet, you could argue that researchers have moral obligations to the research community. If the researcher is careless or lacks expertise, disillusioned arespondents may no longer be willing to participate in research projects. Some commentators have raised the issue of enthusiastic well meaning DIY types who collect data using ‘the new fun toy’ that is the internet. These people may not know the ethical rules of professional and other bodies so may unwittingly break them. Research instruments may be badly designed and promises made to recipients may not be fulfilled – adding to feelings of disillusionment and alarm. It could be argued that researchers who are guilty of negligence are acting in ways that will harm others – not just the individuals they are working with – but also because they close down opportunities for valuable Internet research to be conducted in the future. We're all starting to be aware that increasingly chat rooms and newsgroups are starting to resent the intrusion of researchers who they feel come in and ‘strip the assets’ of the group. I personally think that a research method which leaves behind bad feeling among participants is morally suspect! What do other people think about this??? Cheers chris