Until Timothy Leary came along, psychology researchers at Harvard could do pretty much anything they wanted with their human subjects and still be left in peace. Even with Leary and his colleague Richard Alpert hosting psilocybin parties in private homes, with state and national agencies investigating the legality of the drug tests, and with reports of at least one former subject hospitalized at McLean's with a nervous breakdown-- even then, Harvard didn't do much. The Crimson reported in the spring of 1962 that University officials had known about the research on hallucinogens for at least two years, but had not interfered "because to do so would be an invasion of academic freedom."

Leary did set the University to thinking, for the first time, about overseeing researchers in order to safeguard the rights of subjects. Nothing substantial was done, however, until 1966, when the federal government required the establishment of a standing institutional committee to review all research funded by the Public Health Service. That committee was the ancestor of the Committee on the Use of Human Subjects (CUHS), now charged with the review of experiments performed within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Most of the 14 members of the CUHS are from the Psychology and Social Relations Department, just as most of the projects it reviews are in psychology. The committee is supposed to ensure that no humans are subjected to risk of any kind; or that if an experiment must involve risk, its benefits outweigh its dangers and its subjects fully understand those dangers and freely agree to participate.

The word "risk" often brings to mind medical or biological dangers-- chancy new surgical techniques or the testing of possibly toxic new drugs. But although psychological research sometimes entails physical risk--Leary was not alone in testing drugs, and electric shock, loud sudden noise and alcohol have all been used recently in William James-- more often the dangers are to the mind. Experimental psychology can invade subjects' privacy, stressfully manipulate their minds, or coerce them into unpleasant situations by intentionally deceiving them.

The task of the CUHS is to ensure that research go on without harming its subjects. But Harvard psychologists disagree vehemently on just how much protection the CUHS should provide. Just as the University was reluctant to violate "academic freedom" by restraining Leary, so there remain professors who regard the CUHS as an intrusion and a potential violator of researchers' rights. Others in the department, however, feel that the Committee has not provided enough protection for subjects.

The dispute is clouded further by disagreement among Harvard researchers about what is or is not "ethical." A brief description of three experiments, all recently or currently performed at Harvard, show the complexities involved:

Heart attack. You are walking down a not-too-busy Cambridge street. Suddenly you notice a young man, "a typical college-age student in appearance," collapse to the ground, "clutching his heart" and "in obvious pain." Alarmed, you rush forward to assist the man.

As you do so, a cameraman, hidden, perhaps, behind a nearby tree, records your reactions. Unwittingly you have become part of a psychology study. If you become suspicious when the student rises unhurt, or if you happen to notice the cameraman, you may resent having been tricked. But if you don't catch on, you may never realize the contribution you have made to science.

Moreover, had you-- out of fear, say-- ignored the victim's plight and walked quickly away, your guilt feelings might never have been dispelled. You would never know that the "typical college student" was in fact a "stooge," helping a Harvard graduate student in psychology complete his dissertation.

The scenario and the quotes are from a research proposal approved by the CUHS several years ago. The document, after describing the methods of the study--designed to measure helping behavior-- explains why "debriefing (of subjects) will provide no useful purpose."

"Any subject who helps," the graduate student writes, "will feel good because he has helped and may have negative feelings if he is debriefed and realizes he has been tricked." The proposal does not discuss the feelings of those subjects who decide not to help or of those who discover the trick.

Herbert Kelman, Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics, criticized such studies in a 1972 article in American Psychologist. "Such a procedure," Kelman wrote, "on the basis of a rather massive deception, places the subject in a situation...that may (whether or not he decides to help the victim) be very disturbing to him-- without giving him any choice in the matter at all."

This Course May Be Dangerous to Your Health. One course in the Harvard catalogue requires its student to become research subjects. Psychology and Social Relations 1330, Group Psychology, is taught by Professor Robert Freed Bales. The course, Bales says, is "primarily education" for undergraduates, but he adds that both he and graduate students have used observations of student interaction for their research. To enroll, students must accept the "ethical responsibilities involved in the professional role of scientific investigator." What they investigate is each other.

Students wanting to join PSR 1330 must agree to accept "any possible risks." The course calls for participation in small groups with subsequent self-analysis, and Stephen Williamson, a pre-doctoral fellow associated with the course, says that it can indeed be an "intense experience."

"It raises question," he says, "and it can be painful."