The Raft

There is a fair amount of "stuff" going on here. Arguably the most interesting aspect of this experiment is the manner in which it is conducted - . An aspect that isn't scrutinised in any greater depth.

There are a few, non negotiable, rules that apply to scientific experiments, a number of which were broken in this study:

• A honest researcher doesn't have an agenda to, by means of bias, validitie their hypothesis. A study/experiment is exactly what it implies - a test to see if a theory can be further validated. Trying to influence a study to prove your point is a big no-no.

So... before the experiment began it was, from a scientific point of view a "non-starter".

• A scientific study is most often, and certainly in the case, required to outline what "it is looking for" and "how it is going to be conducted" - before it begins. Changing objective and methodology once the study has commenced is another bi no-no

• The most flagrant breach of conduct is having the "scientist" play an active part in the study - and thus play an active roll in the findings. That is an, enormous, NO-NO.

So... whatever The Raft was - it was not a scientific study and it's findings, whatever they turned out to be, were unlikely to be accepted by any form of "academia".

Then there are the obvious, and hugely relevant, ethical questions. That any higher educational establishment would allow an experiment which, in its definition, aims at placing "real people" in harms way just to study how they would react - is incomprehensible.

There is a documentary to be had out of all this - it's the one covering how it was ever allowed to happen and why nobody ended up in court after its completion.