Bales insists, however, that the risks are "very minor" and that students are not psychologically harmed by his course. "I've had no problem of breakage," he says. Williamson agrees with Bales that PSR 1330 is not dangerous. "If it is harmful," he says, "the person was heading for danger anyway."

Williamson himself is doing research based on data collected from observing the course in years past. There is no indication in the agreement students sign that written observational data about them will "routinely" be maintained, as Bales says they are. Bales called the lack of information in the agreement an "omission by error. Now that I note it isn't there," he says, "I'll put it in."

Love and sex and all that. Zick Rubin, associate professor of Psychology, is an authority on "couples research." Edward L. Pattullo, director of the Center for the Behavioral Sciences and chairman of the CUHS, says that such research is one of the most ethically difficult fields of inquiry--last spring the Committee discouraged a graduate student from conducting a study in the area because, according to Committee member David Gartrell, the student lacked "the requisite counseling skills." But the CUHS has not hindered Rubin's research-- although according to Gartrell, Rubin himself found his work was "very intrusive and was creating problems."

Through questionnaires, interviews and laboratory experiments, Rubin studies the relationships between men and women in student dating. "This tends to be a problem, first, in terms of recruiting," Pattullo says. "Each member of the couple should feel equally free to say no." But one member may ask the other, why don't you participate? What are you unwilling to share?

Once underway, the study may continue to influence its subjects and their relationships. "In some cases," Rubin writes in an upcoming article in the American Psychologist coauthored by his former research assistant, Cynthia Mitchell, "our study served to strengthen a relationship; in other cases, to facilitate its dissolution." Rubin believes that the study affected, one way or the other, "considerably more than half of the couples."

Personal, probing questions were the most frequent cause of problems. Questionnaires raised issues that many couples had never discussed and that in some cases, subjects had not even though about themselves. Specific questions included:

Who would you say is more involved in your relationship, -- or you?

How likely would you say it is that you and -- will eventually marry each other?

What are the worst things about your relationship with --?

In at least some cases, Rubin says, participation "led to conflicts in which one partner was more ready to disclose his or her feelings..."

Thus, Rubin not only observed but also influenced and, in some cases, helped bring about the demise of the relationships he sought to study. Rubin believes that his project did not cause "many" breakups which "would not have occurred anyway." The risks exist, however, and lead to questions of how or whether subjects can be apprised of the dangers of participation before they become involved.

Pattullo says that some subjects "may regret" participating in couples research. Those subjects, he believes, should be offered "some help" afterwards by the researcher.

It is rarely possible to point to experiments and say, this one is ethical, this one is unethical-- and for this reason, the Committee has avoided sweeping regulation. On the issue of deceit, for example, it has formulated no general policy. No consensus exists within the Psychology and Social Relations Department on the morality of deception. Kelman believes, for example, that deception "may create self-doubts, lower self-esteem, or create temporary conflict, frustration or anxiety." Even when it may seem benign, Kelman writes, deception "violates the respect to which all fellow humans are entitled."

But the CUHS is not overly offended by deception. "Researchers tend to think of deception as a white lie," Gartell explains. And, he says, many CUHS members have depended on it in their own research work. "As practitioners who use deception, we're not going to say that deception per se necessarily involves risks."

Although the CUHS has never lapsed into self-righteousness, it continues to inspire resentment among some Harvard researchers. Bales is one professor who worries about the potential consequences of committee review. "I think there are ethical problems in research," he said, "and I like to see them discussed. But I don't think people should feel intimidated by committees prejudiced against them." Bales does not think the CUHS is an intimidating force right now-- "but whenever you have a regulatory mechanism, the possibility exists."