>
experimental design is seriously flawed.
There is actually a much greater, and serious, problem.
Universities have regulations about
research on human subjects.
Sample overview; the exact rules may vary from school to school but they are all under Federal regulation 45 CFR 46. Similar regulations must apply in Europe and many other parts of the world. Even
in Arizona.
You are not allowed to hurt humans.
There are Reviewed, Expedited, and Exempt categories. Nasty experiments must be carefully described and formally approved. Less-nasty experiments may be approved with less formality. And there are some experimental activities that are so safe that an experimenter may declare them "exempt", but he/she better read all the fine print because there are some twists and turns in the criteria, and calling an experiment "exempt" when it isn't will get you in deep trouble.
The proposed listening tests do not meet any of the listed Exempt categories (because the rules aim at food/drug experiments and listening is not really considered). There may be a loophole if the listening is part of a regular Music Appreciation course where listening "is conducted in an established or commonly accepted educational setting and involves normal educational practices". (We could look at 21 CFR Sec. 812(c)(4), but "It is the sponsor?s responsibility to provide sufficient justification to support the exemption..." and "...must not put subjects at risk.")
However, I believe the professor's initial brief
"Dude, it will melt your face off!!!" puts the experimenter
on notice that the experimental subject IS in risk of Great Harm. Such an experiment could not be approved in the US, any more than testing a flame-thrower on live humans. This is not a "Unanticipated Adverse Device Effect", since an adverse effect (face-melting) is obviously anticipated. The protocol has to be adapted so the face can NOT melt, with a HIGH degree of confidence. In light of the prof's assertion, this is unlikely until he formally retracts this informal statement.
Alternatively, we could try to melt the face off of mice, flatworms, or other non-human subjects, though this means turning to a different set of rules about experiments on animals. Or we could try a non-living face, such as the heads in the aluminum-beanie paper. Or corpses. But then we have to allow for differences in hearing acuity between humans, flatworms, and clay heads.
Another serious flaw is that exceeding recognized Standards for exposure to high-level sound will cause permanent hearing loss, and the levels audiophiles commonly use to audition systems approaches dangerous levels (85dB SPL is "safe", any more has to be studied).
In terms of institutional bureaucratic experimental regulations, there is no way Joel can be allowed to run this experiment, not without watering-down the test conditions to the point that they are meaningless.
There may also be university regulations about privacy of experimental subjects. In this case, I believe that Joel's identity might have to be double-blinded, so that not even Joel could know that he was the experimental subject.
