Correspondence Deception in Research Is Morally Problematic... and so too Is Not Using It Morally: Reply to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Use of Deception in Public Health Behavioral Intervention Trials: A Case Study of Three Online Alcohol Trials”

Weareverypleased that the explorations of the ethical issues raised by our research practice (McCambridge et al. 2013a) have stimulated such thoughtful and diverse responses. Al-most all indicate concern that it may be wrong to accept the moral hazards we are prepared to face, and we agree there are many reasons to take very seriously these issues, hence our attempts to do so. Most appear to accept that our research practices are of low risk and not likely to cause harm to participants, and the key issues center on informed consent. It is interesting that there are such differences in the particular concerns identified by the commentators, andwe are struck by the breadth of their concerns. Wang and Kitsis (2013) believe there should be an indi-vidual study requirement to measure the impact of decep-tion when it is used, while we see a need to develop a body of research on this subject, though not necessarily in every study. Brief interventions opportunistically grab a fewmin-utes of people’s time, and our orientation is to stripping down rather than beefing up the research process, for rea-sons previously explained, though simple brief measures of the type proposed are appealing. Plunk and Grucza (2013), Sisti and colleagues (2013), and similarly Wang and Kitsis (2013) take exception to ou