Anne Tolley's 'lab rats' call inflammatory political rhetoric

Social Development Minister Anne Tolley canned a ministry trial, saying she did not want children used as 'lab rats'.

Social Development Minister Anne Tolley canned a ministry trial, saying she did not want children used as 'lab rats'.

OPINION: A minister sees a briefing paper with a proposal to test a computer model designed to identify children at risk of maltreatment.  She reacts strongly.

"Not on my watch!" she writes in the margin, "these children are not lab-rats". The study is shelved.

The media obtain the briefing paper, complete with the marginalia, and publicise it.

Have you ever been a lab rat?

Share your stories, photos and videos.

The Opposition seize on the lab-rats cry and use it in the House against the Minister of Social Development and the ministry.

Should we feel relieved? Have we averted another unfortunate experiment? No.

The minister's reaction, and the media and Opposition response to it should make us feel uneasy.

The problem is not the shelving of the study – though that was a mistake too – rather it is the chilling effect of the knee-jerk and political response to an attempt to produce evidence for important social policy.

Science collided with politics, and politics won.

Children not 'lab rats' - Tolley
MSD officials unlikely to have viewed children as 'lab rats' - ethics professor

The study was an observational study intended to test the accuracy of a computer model designed to identify children at risk of maltreatment.

Ad Feedback

It would have seen all children born in 2015 rated for risk. Data, which would have been collected over the next two years in any event, would have been analysed to see if the computer model had accurately identified those who were in fact been maltreated over that period.

The study did not involve any new or untried interventions: that is what it means to say it was an observational study.

During the period of the study, the children being observed would have received exactly the same services they would have received if there had been no study.

In the ministry's words, the study "would not have displaced standard response. Agencies such as Child Youth and Family and the Police would have, at all times, continued to act on notifications in relation to vulnerable children, as they do now.  All children would have received the full range of support available from agencies".

The study did not propose to get the children or their families to do anything they would not otherwise have done.

It did not involve the withdrawal of any services.

Any notification that a child was at risk – notifications generated just as they are now, and independently of the computer model being tested – were to have been responded to exactly as they are now.

The 'observations' were entirely in the background: producing an automated risk ranking from data already held, and looking through records of substantiated abuse at a future date.

The study posed no risk to the children: it did not involve any intervention.

Now, of course, observational studies can raise significant ethical issues.

It is probably impossible to obtain consent from everyone in a study of this size; we know that the cases of verified abuse – the ones we would have looked for in the computer predictions – will not include all cases of actual abuse, and we might be concerned that it's easier to hide abuse if your GP thinks you're a good, hard-working, decent couple than it is if you're a beneficiary.

Those are the sorts of issues that would have been discussed by an independent ethical review of the research.

Perhaps such a review would have found the problems insurmountable and refused to allow it to go ahead.

But none of this warrants the knee-jerk dismissal of the research in a 10-word comment in the margins of a briefing paper.

The suggestion that the study would treat children as lab-rats is inflammatory and misleading, but rhetoric won the day.

The failure of anyone to take the trouble to try to substantiate the minister's initial concerns, rather than latching on to misleading rhetoric, bodes ill for the possibility of anything like a genuine research-driven approach.

That is something we should all be worried about.

Child maltreatment is an appalling and recalcitrant problem and New Zealand's record is particularly poor.

We will make progress in these areas only if we seek good evidence-based policy.

We must not stumble along relying on experience and anecdote: it leads us astray.

We owe the kids a better, more informed, approach.

Tim Dare is an associate professor of philosophy at The University of Auckland. In 2012 he was contracted by the Ministry of Social Development to provide an ethical analysis of the predictive risk modelling tool this study was intended to test. His report is available on the MSD website.

 - The Dominion Post


Ad Feedback
special offers
Ad Feedback