The latest revision to the Common Rule released in January exempted studies using "benign behavioral interventions" – such as those typically used by social scientists – from the level of oversight required for medical research with human participants. This news was welcomed by some who have long chafed against what they see as excessive scrutiny of their studies. In an article about the changes, the New York Times reports about an op ed published in the Chronicle of Higher Education; in it, co-authors Richard A. Shweder, an anthropologist, and Richard E. Nisbett, a psychologist, celebrate the easing of oversight, noting "Socrates himself would probably roll over in his grave if he knew about the hoops his academic heirs in the humanities, law, and the social sciences have been jumping through." However, famous studies like the Milgram and Stanford prison experiments demonstrate the extremes to which social science research can go. Tracy Arwood, assistant vice president for research compliance at Clemson University, notes: "Researchers tend to underestimate the risk of activities that they are very comfortable with," particularly when conducting experiments and publishing the results is critical to the advancement of their careers. Read the entire New York Times article here.