Michelle N. Meyer|Patrick R. Heck|Geoffrey S. Holtzman|Sharolyn Anderson|William Cai|Duncan J. Watts|Christopher F. Chabris
Objecting to experiments that compare two unobjectionable policies or treatments
Geisinger Health System|Geisinger Health System|Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute|Geisinger Health System|Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute|Geisinger Health System|Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute|Microsoft (United States)|Microsoft (United States)|Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute|Geisinger Health System|Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse
randomized experiments enormous potential improve human welfare many domains including healthcare education finance public policy however ab tests often criticized ethical grounds even similar untested interventions implemented without objection find robust evidence across 16 studies 5873 participants three diverse populations spanning nine domainsfrom healthcare autonomous vehicle design poverty reductionthat people frequently rate ab tests designed establish comparative effectiveness two policies treatments inappropriate even universally implementing either b untested seen appropriate ab effect strong among higher educational attainment science literacy among relevant professionals persists even reason prefer b even recipients treated unequally randomly conditions b ab several remaining explanations effecta belief consent required impose policy half population entire population aversion controlled uncontrolled experiments proxy form illusion knowledge according randomized evaluations unnecessary experts already know worksappear contribute effect none dominates fully accounts conclude rigorously evaluating policies treatments via pragmatic randomized trials may provoke greater objection simply implementing policies treatments untested