To put it simply: no, it doesn’t seem like ARTIS goes through any university ethics review of its research, nor do research ethics receive even passing mention on the ARTIS site.

Before that, let’s keep in mind this wonderful sentence from Atran, about the validity of his proposals :

Ask any cop on the beat: those things work.

Lyrics : http://fr.lyrics-copy.com/jehan-jonas/flic-de-paris.htm

I think that the kind of “research” those people propose, and the kind of career they are embracing through it, are very good illustrations of what Bourdieu called “cynical use” of social sciences.

How long before people like Atran go and beg the military for research funding in order to “de-radicalize” activists (anti-militarists or anti-fascists for example) ?

Finally, thanks Max for this post, especially for the hilarious video.

Here is the footage :

Even though some little details might appear as slightly strange, I believe this is absolutely authentic.

***

On a more personal note, the following ressembles how I would like to thank this great anthropologist and others his kind for the service they pay to the profession, and for their exemplary commitment to justice :

Barbara Rose Johnston:
Anthropologists in the Amazon — Secrets of the Tribe
Counterpunch
http://bit.ly/ao4eqm

especially this:

The core elements of anthropology’s ethical code are the obligation to secure free and prior informed consent and the commitment to do no harm. Today’s ethical norms strive towards research that not only occurs with informed consent, it is problem-focused — shaped in collaborative ways to address problems and needs of mutual concern.

Such an approach is impossible when research is defined, funded, and used by more powerful actors in non-transparent ways.

Consider the role of anthropologists in assisting the US military and their efforts to secure valuable data from vulnerable communities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The role of the anthropologist, like that in the 60s era Atomic Energy Commission-funded research expeditions, is that of the culture broker and research facilitator. The anthropologist develops rapport and soothes tensions in ways that allow their military companions to get their data. Given that the research objectives, the setting, and the conduct of “researchers” and subjects is defined or dictated by an external authority – in this case, the military – compromises and ethical quandaries become the norm.

Scott Atran, far from overcoming HTS’ ethical conflicts and violations, merely reproduces them. His program is no answer at all, and will thus fail to achieve another of his stated goals: allaying the serious concerns of anthropologists in working with the military.

And there is an ultimate reason why: the military, engaged in warfare and occupation, can never present a good ethical choice for anthropology. Atran et al. need to stop the patriotic drum beating and stop trying to rope academics to fall in lockstep behind the imperial state.