It really, really isn't a change in policy, and that's why there's no need for examples that were "previously allowed" but now aren't. This is a distillation a

It really, really isn't a change in policy, and that's why there's no need for examples that were "previously allowed" but now aren't. This is a distillation and synthesis of existing policies in place at hundreds of major institutions and organizations with their own ethics policies for qualitatively and quantitatively estimating the harms and benefits of proposed research. An anthropologist disturbing a culture to document it is a trade-off maybe not worth making. A summary of behaviors found in autism spectrum disorders that is insufficiently inclusive of their lived experience is a bad idea. This is the kind of evaluation researchers need to perform sufficiently to justify their work (and their funding), and they do it all the time. Increasingly they also need to evaluate whether they themselves are fit to perform that evaluation, and the guidelines here suggest situations where researchers may want to look outside themselves, situations which hitherto were not as frequently considered as, for example, race, religion, or income level. Being more inclusive on what matters should be thought of as potential sources of bias or inadvertent harm is not a change in policy, it is an acknowledgement that the existing policy was not sufficiently well delineated.