We might be talking past each other, but that doesn't mean we don't disagree, because I don't agree with this:
> For the consideration what negative effects there are, there are ethic boards, as its generally considered unethical to make that consideration alone as a stakeholder.
A well trained ethics board might be a nice institutional tool to provide a documented ethical evaluation one can start with, but it of course does not in any way relieve anyone involved from their moral agency or the need to assess their actions "alone".
I'm also in strong opposition to the idea that it's unethical to make ethical considerations alone, as a stakeholder or not. Generally: delegating ethical responsibility of ones own action to a hierarchy is IMO very unethical, no matter how the industry handles it.
> Forgoing the conclusion of that consideration doesnt mean we didnt need an ethics board in the first place.
In my earlier comments I wasn't writing (or thinking) about whether we(?) need ethics boards or not and I do think that this is a different topic, but: We don't strictly need ethics boards, right? It's not something like human agency. They're a nice attempt to increase checks and balances in an institutionalized manner, not some kind of moral requirement.
> There are two distinct questions here, what are the ethical concerns for the study and should there be an ethics board involved in finding an answer to the first question.
There I agree, except that the ethics board can not answer the first question for the researchers. But that aside: Yes, the demand of seeking counsel can be morally justified.
> Since we are talking about long term impact on peoples behavior, i think you can make a case that not considering the ethical aspects of that impact on unknowing test subjects is generally unethical?
I think this is the essence of the question. I don't know of any ethical difference between long and short term impact, so I'd cut that out. I don't think that the test subjects knowledge would change anything in that regard, but tell me, if I'm wrong here. All shortened it would leave us with:
You should ethically consider your impact on test subjects.
Which I would agree on. Let's hope they've considered it in an appropriate manner.
I just thought that there is some material concern - like an actual moral wrongdoing - they've done, instead of just a concern that they might not have been concerned.