The economist behind a controversial study showing attractive female students got lower grades after classes moved online during the pandemic has been acquitted of research misconduct, according to a report from his former institution.
But the researcher, Adrian Mehic, did not get off without reproof: Even if the work kept to the letter of the law, it may still have had “unethical consequences,” Erik Renström, vice-chancellor of Lund University in Sweden, wrote in the June 8 report (in Swedish).
In the study, a jury made up largely of final-year high schoolers rated the looks of university students based on pictures taken from social media accounts. The ratings were then linked to other publicly available data about the students, including academic performance. The findings, published in the journal Economics Letters in August 2022, made headlines across the globe.
But the students had not consented to the research, nor were they informed about it. The revelation unleashed “a storm of criticism at the university,” according to local media.
Some study participants expressed shock and discomfort at having had their attractiveness rated without their knowledge. Others complained the raw data had not been properly anonymized, alleging they were able to identify themselves in just three minutes giving them access to their beauty ratings.
In October, Mehic, then a PhD student at Lund University, was reported to the school’s ethics committee for “suspected deviation from good research practice,” according to the report. The charges focused on how Mehic collected and handled personal data and whether he should have obtained ethics approval for his study and consent from the participants.
“I do understand that beauty is a sometimes controversial topic,” Mehic, who is now an assistant professor at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics in Stockholm, told Retraction Watch by email. “However, the subjects have voluntarily decided to share their data online. This data may be used by others for certain purposes, including commercial (social media outlets are well-known to sell data to companies), or research.”
Lund University asked the national Ethics Review Appeals Board to decide whether the study would have needed ethics approval. In February, the board found the personal data collected in the study were not of such sensitive nature as to require such review.
The school also requested an external expert, Jane Reichel of Stockholm University, to review the case. She concluded in March that the study had not deviated from good research practice, was consistent with European data-protection rules and had followed the ethics standards of the journal that published the findings.
“The university decides that Adrian Mehic [and his supervisors] were not guilty of deviating from good research practice,” the report concluded.
The document does level some criticism against the researcher, however, noting that he could easily have notified the participants that he was conducting the study. Moreover, the report stated:
It may also reasonably be considered as an invasion of personal integrity to have one’s looks rated the way it was done in the study. The execution of the study might thereby have had unethical consequences even if the letter of the law has been followed. For this, the execution of the study deserves criticism.
Asked about this point, Mehic said:
There is a lot of research that can make people uncomfortable, e.g. animal studies. The Scandinavian countries also allow researchers to use detailed administrative data on income, debt, mental health, medicine use, and so on. Probably, not everyone is okay with this, but the public use of such data is enshrined in our Constitution (at least in Sweden). At the end of the day, it’s a question about balance between integrity and scientific progress.
Anders Ahlberg, director of graduate studies at the faculty of engineering at Lund University, was one of the people who reported the study to the school’s ethics committee. He told us by email:
I did find it interesting that the study was both acquitted and criticized. There seem to be some wiggle room between what is formally deemed unethical and what may be allowed but still is considered inappropriate.
My impression of the ruling is that there was less focus on the intent of the underlying philosophy behind the European code for research integrity (ALLEA norms concerning reliability, honesty, respect and accountability), and more focus on legal technicalities (various aspects and limitations of GDPR).
He added that he found it “strange” that photos and stored ratings of study participants’ attractiveness are “not considered sensitive personal information or psychologically harmful (lack of respect). The students should have been asked for consent prior to the study.”
According to a June 14 press release from Lund University, the Swedish National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct has also cleared the study of “all the previous charges,” noting that:
An expert for the board has concluded that no mistakes have been made regarding, for example, the issue of consent, dissemination of information, respect for research subjects and data handling. All this together thus concludes that the research study by Adrian Mehic was done in a completely correct way.
Note: The excerpts from the university’s investigation report were translated by the writer.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Of course cancel culture and “waw to not hurt somebody” get new power. Yet it begin already to HARM science and we return to Medieval and scholastic approach. All that cancel culture, gender bla bla and all ret if the shits coming from US must be STOPPED to spread in Europe. Its against free and liberty spirit of the Scandinavian nations as well. Who feel uncomfortable with whatever, should move TO US. Many substantial researchers quit America due to this new form of fascism. But as the history teach us, science always defeats fascism.
Is it only me who wonders why the study subjects were only women?…
Frankly, I am afraid you are the only one.
If you’re interested in finding out why that is, you may want to read the paper (actually, the abstract will do).
The effect was only present for the female subjects, which is why the result is interesting in the first place. You are mistaken in thinking he only looked at them.
Yes.
“But the students had not consented to the research, nor were they informed about it.”
“Some study participants expressed shock and discomfort at having had their attractiveness rated without their knowledge.”
Is this a joke? These female students post pictures of themselves on the open, public internet and then complain when their images are used without permission in a study that purportedly ranks the images according to “beauty”? Really, is this a joke? If they are such sensitive snowflakes then perhaps they shouldn’t be posting/uploading this kind of information to the open, public internet for everyone to see.
Posting a photo online is quite normal and innocuous. It is absurd and offensive that a researcher took their images to rank them by attractiveness. Reacting to your photo being used in such a way is not “being a sensitive snowflake” — most people would not be comfortable with that, and most people have some form of online presence. Basic decency doesn’t suddenly disappear because we are on the internet.
If you post your own photo on social media, you are going to be judged on your attractiveness. The fact that many people deliberately dress well, groom themselves, and use image filters to make themselves look more attractive shows this to be the case.
Its the sexualization and objectification of woman without their consent that is horrifying or maybe should say “whoreifying”.
You made women sexual objects not humans, then subject them to judgements of their rank or worth based solely on their physical “man stimulating” attributes. That devalues those women in the eyes of the community and opens them up to a lifetime of sexual harassment and marginalization by their peers. Its just a form of crudity and cruelty.
To make that public and searchable enough that the women were able to find themselves easily and their “ranking” is disturbing. They didnt post their pictures for your gratification. They posted them as part of being a member of an online community. Do women now have to hide themselves online so they arent targeted? Your the creep who singled them out. I give this researcher a ranking of zero.
And yet all relevant authorities have stated that they researcher did nothing wrong. Did not deviate from good research practice, did not violate GDPR and followed the ethics standards of the journal that published the findings.
“All the authorities”… is that to be the source of our ethics? How about common decency? Mehic behaved badly and owes the young women his apology.
“All the authorities”… is that to be the source of our ethics?
In this case, yes. The authorities have determined that Mehic behaved within the established scientific norms and ethics. He broke no law. That you disagree with the outcome is irrelevant and Mehic owes nobody an apology.
Indeed! I do agree. Although it is a bad idea for women to display themselves online, researcher Mehic chose a cruel and humiliating methodology to make a truly trivial point.
“Although it is a bad idea for women to display themselves online, . . . .”
No, it’s a bad idea for women to display and post their personnel information (pictures etc.) online without realizing the possible consequences in doing so.
“. . . researcher Mehic chose a cruel and humiliating methodology to make a truly trivial point.”
Your opinion. Others might not feel the same way.
“No, it’s a bad idea for women to display and post their personnel information (pictures etc.) online without realizing the possible consequences in doing so.”
I’m sorry, but this sounds a lot like “she shouldn’t have worn such a short skirt”.
My apologies, I did not mean to imply that at all. I feel that it is a bad idea for anyone female or male to post their pictures and personnel information on the internet without realizing the possible consequences in doing so.
I am sorry again, but that isn’t much better. You can expect bad people to do bad things, but expecting a scientist to – fully approved – use your pictures and personal information in such a way would not be on my list of potential consequences.
Just as an example, almost all of my colleagues have a public profile of their scientific expertise, alongside a picture of themselves. We are expected to have this. I could imagine some student abusing those pictures to make a mocking meme because they don’t like their teachers, but if one of my colleagues at my university would use them for research, I’d have quite higher expectations of their ethics.
But the women being ranked by high schoolers did feel this way. That has relevance in questions of not just technical compliance with the letter of policies but with the spirit of ethical codes, which is not to harm subjects of research. (At least in the fields I know of, for Human Subjects review in the US.)
Your allusion to researchers conducting their work ” in the spirit of ethical codes which is not to harm subjects of research” is the basis of my great discomfort with this research. I wonder how William Kemmler would feel if his daughter, sister, or girlfriend ranked lowest in this survey and thus meriting the title of “Miss Ugly”.
Apparently you and Mehic don’t share my discomfort with what was done to these young women. And of course it is my opinion- otherwise I would not have submitted it.