Would you like to give any example please? What kind of social problem you are talking about and a bold topic can surely be discussed within ethical limitations.

I had an interview for Germany for PhD. They were not Mr :-p. The panel were comprised of three Misses. My topic was related to the effect of juvenile pornography on the child abuses in Pakistan. They said what I have mentioned.

I think that they do so for fear of saying something politically incorrect.

Today it is much more important to look good in the eyes of the public and the media, than to seek the good in itself. There are many things that are obviously bad, but almost nobody denounce it. Your subject of the juvenile pornography is a good example about this. This is an actual ethical issue.

Dear if you simply want to gather data critically, you should not bother your respondent but its the qualities of a good researcher to simplify their questions which are easy to respondent and indirectly should focus. Its you that know about society and culture not your interviewee. You must be the doctor of society not a common man.

If you propose a bold topic, why do they ask about ethical issues?

I think this was the question asked and somehow I feel the responses have been skirting the issue.

The first question to ask ourselves is why is there a need for ethics in research?

It is ultimately ensuring that you do not harm your participants either intentionally or unintentionally/ inadvertently during the course of the research. Bold or sensitive topics need to be dealt with utmost care. Social Science research never claims that one cannot conduct research on sensitive topics, it simply tries to ensure that the way in which the research was conducted ensures that the participants were fully aware of the research procedures, their freedom to participate or not participate should be made available, informed and understood consent should be there. Any research that deals with human subjects are usually required to address ethical issues- sensitive or otherwise.

I hope this clarifies your doubts further

Dear all, this part of RG represents academical circles, thus I suppose I represent just a single common man here (I am no "Vox Populi" type). However I have some practice both from research and legal enforcement. Thus, if my opinions differ, I mean no offfence, it is just because my experiences are different.

In this context I would like to turn attention to the last sentence of initial question.

No research can solve any problem, its purpose is to identify problem, analyze it, make reasoned conclusions and to propose the way ahead. Thus it can serve as important input for further work.

Legally the solution of problems depends on law makers and on law enforcement agencies.

The only another way how research can solve problems is if its results can gain attention of enough people and if submitted results persuade them to act on their own.

I could describe the way how research influences decision making both on top EU level and, in some cases, on national level in greater detail, but I am not sure if it would be of any interest of the group.

Sorry again if I crossed limits of tolerance of anybody.

Simply because bold topics give birth to controversies that fall under the ethics domain.