"Psychological research continues to invoves ethical costs to society and to human participants." To what extent do you agree with this statement?

One argument that disagrees with the view that research has ethical costs to society was the ground breaking research into separation and attachment, conducted by Bowlby (1944). The research, although considered unethical due to breach in confidentiality, highlighted he importance of the mother giving love and affection, not just physical care. Furthermore, in 2014, UNICEF stated that "deprivation that stems from lack of care can have just as detrimental effect on brain development as lack of food". This clearly suggests that, even if slightly unethical, can have a positive and meaningful impact on society. Thus, it can be concluded that society does no suffer from unethical studies carried out in Psychology.
However, others would argue that the costs to the participant are still significant, thus agreeing with the given statement. For example, Watson and Rayner (1920) psychologically traumatised an 11-month old baby to demonstrate that emotion could be learnt. Although this was incredibly influential, and had implications for treatment and psychotherapy, many would argue that conducting the research on an animal would have been more ethical. Powell (2014) claimed that Albert, the baby, had a lifelong aversion to animals, thus rendering the study highly unethical. In conclusion, it seems that the psychological harm to participants is not worth the potential benefits to society, thus agreeing with the statement that psychological research continues to involve ethical costs to participants.