尊敬的用户您好，这是来自FT中文网的温馨提示：如您对更多FT中文网的内容感兴趣，请在苹果应用商店或谷歌应用市场搜索“FT中文网”，下载FT中文网的官方应用。
While most economic debates are about as spicy as boiled potatoes, others generate a bit more heat. A recent stir fell into the second category, in response to a new study of junior academics angling for jobs in economics. Participants knew they were part of an experiment, but not that some would get more social media promotion from “influencers” than others. (Economics influencers that is — Kylie Jenner does not care about your robustness checks.)
虽然大多数经济辩论就像煮熟的土豆一样平淡无味，但有些辩论却引发了更多的热议。最近的一场风波就属于这种情况，是对一项关于经济学初级学者争取工作的新研究的回应。参与者知道他们是实验的一部分，但不知道有些人会比其他人获得更多来自“影响者”的社交媒体推广。（这里的“影响者”指的是经济学领域的——凯莉•詹纳(Kylie Jenner)可不关心你的稳健性检查。）
Cue outrage, sprinkled with some snark. One observer commented on the cruelty of letting “a coin toss determine who wins, and who is doomed to a career in academia”. More seriously, how do economists weigh up the ethics of human experiments?
引起愤怒，夹杂着一些讽刺。一位观察者评论道，让“抛硬币决定谁胜出，谁注定要在学术界度过一生”是残酷的。更严肃地说，经济学家如何权衡人类实验的伦理道德？
There are formal processes to stop research investigating whether punching people in the face causes pain. American academics have to submit studies involving human subjects to ethical review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and often local boards when their work is on people in other countries. Europeans have been slower to implement their own processes, but they are catching up.
有正式的程序来阻止研究是否拳击会引起疼痛。美国学者必须将涉及人类对象的研究提交给伦理审查委员会(IRB)进行审查，而且当他们的研究对象是其他国家的人时，通常还要提交给当地委员会。欧洲人在实施自己的程序方面进展较慢，但他们正在迎头赶上。
Researchers are generally supposed to avoid knowingly doing harm. They should also ask participants for informed consent, though not if the risks are minimal and telling people would muck up the results. (“Please take part in our study of sexism . . . now would you hire this woman?”)
研究人员通常应该避免有意造成伤害。他们还应该征得参与者的知情同意，尽管如果风险很小并且告知人们会影响结果，就不需要征得同意。（“请参与我们的性别歧视研究...现在你会雇佣这个女性吗？”）
When it comes to work in developing countries, it might seem unfair to allocate poverty-busting interventions randomly, rather than doling them out to everyone who might benefit. The justification economists usually offer is that when budgets are tight and universal coverage isn’t possible at least at first, there is value in rolling out a programme in such a way that it can be evaluated rigorously and improve policymaking.
谈到在发展中国家工作时，随机分配减贫干预措施可能看起来不公平，而不是将其分配给所有可能受益的人。经济学家通常提供的理由是，在预算紧张且最初无法实现普遍覆盖的情况下，以这种方式推出一个计划具有严格评估和改进政策制定的价值。
The power of randomisation could even expand the set of risks researchers can take. One pair of economists wrote in 2014 that although researchers should minimise risk wherever possible, “the more likely a research project is to be able to answer a question in an unbiased way, and the more important that question is to designing more effective policy . . . the more risk it is acceptable to take”.
随机化的力量甚至可以扩大研究人员可以承担的风险范围。一对经济学家在2014年写道，尽管研究人员应该尽可能减少风险，但“一个研究项目能够以无偏的方式回答一个问题的可能性越大，而且这个问题对于设计更有效的政策来说越重要...就越能够承担更多的风险”。
The past five years have seen an uptick in discussion of ethics within economics research, partly in response to a controversial study published in 2020. That examined whether cutting off some slum-dwellers’ water supply would increase the share of bills paid on time. (It did.)
过去五年来，对经济学研究中的伦理问题的讨论有所增加，部分原因是对2020年发表的一项有争议的研究的回应。该研究调查了切断一些贫民窟居民的供水是否会增加按时支付账单的比例。
One group of academics later proposed that papers should come with “ethics appendices” setting out in more detail how the authors dealt with any thorny issues. That could include a discussion of the researchers’ role in the design and implementation of a policy being evaluated to make it clear where ethical responsibilities lie.
后来，一组学者提议论文应该附带“伦理附录”，更详细地说明作者如何处理任何棘手的问题。这可能包括讨论研究人员在政策设计和实施中的角色，以明确伦理责任的所在。
It could also cover any holes in the IRB process, such as the effect of an intervention on non-participants. What if a cash transfer led to recipients bidding up prices, harming others? Although ethics appendices are not yet the norm, some funders are pushing for more information. Sarah Kopper, associate director of research at the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, says that now applicants for the organisation’s funding have to outline any risks posed to the broader population as well as research staff.
它还可以填补伦理审查委员会(IRB)流程中的任何漏洞，例如干预对非参与者的影响。如果现金转移导致接收者抬高价格，损害他人怎么办？尽管伦理附录尚未成为常态，但一些资助机构正在推动提供更多信息。阿卜杜勒•拉蒂夫•贾米尔贫困行动实验室(Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab)的研究副主任萨拉•科珀(Sarah Kopper)表示，现在该组织的资金申请人必须概述对更广泛人群以及研究人员可能带来的任何风险。
Returning to the economics jobs study, Douglas MacKay of the University of North Carolina says that it raises interesting ethical questions. Does intervening in the job market, a highly fraught process, truly carry “minimal risk” to the participants? If it is a zero-sum competition, then giving some candidates a leg up will mean crushing others’ dreams. And if the risk was more than minimal, the lack of fully informed consent from participants could be dubious.
回到经济学就业研究，北卡罗来纳大学(University of North Carolina)的道格拉斯•麦凯(Douglas MacKay)表示，这引发了有趣的伦理问题。在一个高度复杂的就业市场中进行干预，对参与者来说是否真的“风险最小”？如果这是一个零和竞争，那么给一些候选人一点优势就意味着粉碎其他人的梦想。而且，如果风险超过了最小值，参与者缺乏充分知情同意可能是可疑的。
Alvin Roth, one of the authors of that experiment, says: “I can’t imagine economists thinking of a market as zero sum.” Perhaps a social media post could alert someone to a candidate so impressive that they persuade their university to make an extra position available. He points out that plenty of people share papers on social media, adding: “It seems to me that things that aren’t unethical to do shouldn’t be unethical to study to find out their effect.”
埃尔文•罗斯(Alvin Roth)，这个实验的作者之一，说：“我无法想象经济学家会将市场视为零和游戏。”也许一个社交媒体帖子可以提醒某人，让他们说服他们的大学开设一个额外的职位。他指出，很多人在社交媒体上分享论文，并补充说：“在我看来，那些不违反伦理的事情，研究它们的效果也不应该违反伦理。”
Although we might like to think of economics as a meritocracy, it is possible that, left to their own devices, influencers will just promote their pals or their pals’ students. The authors suggested that their randomisation allocated attention “more equitably”. As so much of economics involves careful thinking about counterfactuals, no wonder they matter in the ethics of the subject too.
尽管我们可能希望将经济学视为一种精英制度，但如果让影响者自行决定，他们可能只会推广自己的朋友或朋友的学生。作者建议通过随机分配注意力来实现“更加公平”。由于经济学中涉及对反事实的仔细思考，所以不难理解为什么它们在该学科的伦理中也很重要。
The Economics Show with Soumaya Keynes is a new podcast from the FT bringing listeners a deeper understanding of the most complex global economic issues in easy-to-digest weekly episodes
《与索马亚•凯恩斯谈经济学》是英国《金融时报》推出的一档新播客，通过易于理解的每周节目，带给听众对全球最复杂的经济问题的更深入理解。
Listen to new episodes every Monday on Apple, Spotify, Pocket Casts or wherever you get your podcasts