Lets have a discussion on Ethics and Morals within Science.
You are a scientist trying to test a hypothesis through an experiment.
If confirmed, it could mean a great breakthrough in your field of knowledge. If dismissed, valuable resources and personnel working on this hypothesis may be allocated somewhere else, possibly leading to other developments.
However, the experiment requires the use of human test subjects. Under the laws of your country, you are required to ask for written consent for this kind of experiment.
Said experiment can be carried out without the knowledge of the test subjects. In fact, knowledge of being part of this experiment might alter the test results, rendering the experiment useless.
You are faced with a decision: You choose to...
a) Fake the consents and carry out the experiment, breaking the law and disregarding ethics, but arriving at a correct conclusion and contributing greatly to science.
b) Get the consents and carry out the experiment, knowing that your data may be off, possibly leading to a wrong conclusion, that is bad either ways. But your conscience is clean, and you don't have to worry about being indicted or arrested.
c) Not carry out the experiment. You are convinced that it's best to wait until someone, maybe yourself, comes up with a better experiment.
d) Other (tell us)