Experimental practices developed in different scientific disciplines following different historical trajectories. Thus, standard experimental procedures differ starkly between disciplines. One of the most controversial issues is the use of deception as a methodological device. Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study’s significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible. In experimental economics it is strictly forbidden and a ban on experiments involving deception is enforced by all major economic journals. In the sociological scientific community, there is no clear consensus on the matter. Importantly, the disagreement is sometimes based on ethical considerations, but more often it is based on pragmatic grounds: the anti-deception camp argues that deceiving participants leads to invalid results, while the other side argues that deception has little negative impact and, under certain conditions, can even enhance validity. In this chapter, we first discuss the historical reasons leading to the emergence of such different norms in different fields and then analyze and separate ethical and pragmatic concerns. Finally, we propose some guidelines to regulate the use of deception in sociological experiments.

This chapter explores the epidemiology of harmful alcohol use in young people and adults in the general population and among select clinical groups. It then provides an overview of alcohol-related physical and social harms, before discussing interventions to prevent alcohol use disorders.

The nationals of each High Contracting Party shall receive, within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, the most constant protection and security for their persons and property, and shall enjoy in this respect the full protection and security required by international law.