Many people argue that Facebook's study of how the emotions of it's users changed depending on the emotional content of messages in their facebook feed wouldn't have been approved by the average ethical review board because facebook didn't seek informed consent for the experiment.
Is the harm that the average ethical review board prevents less than the harm that they cause by preventing research from happening? Are principles such as requiring informed consent from all research participants justifiable from an utilitarian perspective?
Simply Googling facebook and study brings you to the issue. This Forbes article is an example of public criticism that facebook got for running the study (don't take it for a good description of the study).
Is the harm that the average ethical review board prevents less than the harm that they cause by preventing research from happening? Are principles such as requiring informed consent from all research participants justifiable from an utilitarian perspective?