Do you consider the IB ethical guidelines in psychology adequate? Are there any extra rules you would want to add? If so, what are your reasons? Are there any rules that you would want to take away? Why?
I would not add or take away any rules from the IB ethical guidelines simply because they allow a school environment to stay safe for experimentation. Students only need to follow these rules when they are conducting an experiment in their IA, at this point in life there are not psychologists trying to form a new theory or hypothesis. This form of examination simply teaches them how to carry out a study and explore something small so they may use these skills for possible future adventures. If students are after doing a more serious experiment they need experience and the IB is a form of preparation for University where they can have a bit more freedom. The rules allow them to carry out a study while maintaining a safe environment considering they are most likely testing on peers.
How do we decide where to balance the interests of the psychological community in advancing knowledge (that might well give benefits in the future) with the protection of experimental subject?
I think the only balance needed is consent, in my opinion, I believe the psychological community is able to advance as much as they want as long as their participant has consented. Consent doesn't mean protection and it is a human life in which is being experimented on but if a person is willing to be a part of an experiment knowing full well the repercussions or that there are unknown repercussions then the test should be carried out. Many of the studies may be inhuman or harmful but if the participant has been briefed on everything the experimenters will be doing and know the possible outcomes then they should be able to carry out the experiment. There are only a handful of brain-related studies and if there were more we could learn so much about the brain and hopefully advance our understanding. If no one in the whole world gives consent then you simply don't carry out the study just like all the studies that get rejected because they violate the ethical guidelines.
For example, all over the world there are constantly drug trials happening for new marketable drugs or treatment for the disease this leads to thousands signing up to be a part of the program. They subject themselves to the substance because they want to, have to or need the money, this gives researchers their consent and begin testing. Animals are constantly used in studies and testing, they may have their own guidelines, however, they are tested on for our knowledge which from my perspective is more inhuman. It's a topic which differs from person to person due to their own cultural or personal values which cause people to have different reasons and emotion when deciding.
Why is it not always possible to tell the subject the aim of the experiment beforehand?
In many cases telling the participant what the aim of an experiment will influence their actions or response that is why there is justified deception and double-blind experiments. If someone is apart of a experiment on conformity and they are told this then they will try their best not to conform due to the social stigma on conforming which will provide in accurate behaviour. Deception is especially important when people are apart of a study diguring out peoples natural reactions and responses as if they are told what the real intention is or that they are being ibserved in a specific way then it ruins the natural response.
