Their opening statement has the most classic of all non-apology tactics: "We're sorry for any harm we caused". Maybe this wasn't their intent, but this is one of the oldest "say the words without having to mean anything" tactics in the book.

It's like telling your partner "I'm sorry if I hurt you". No, you hurt them. Apologize for hurting them.

An apology should be for actions taken, not for how the other party felt about it. Acknowledging those feelings is important, but taking credit for those feelings takes agency away from the other person.

I don’t think that really makes sense. Often in a personal relationship the “action taken” will be innocuous considered in itself. But you may have done it knowing full well that it would hurt the other person’s feelings. In a case where the person’s feelings are totally irrational and you had a strong independent justification for taking the action, it does get more complicated. In general, though, I think it’s a huge mistake to assume that you should never apologize for hurting someone’s feelings.

I don't think you can take the action outside of the context in which it is performed. If you take action knowing another person is likely to feel hurt, are you... not sorry you took that action?

Regardless, you can't genuinely apologize for things that aren't in your control. (You can and should empathize and sympathize with their feelings about it.) It may be a convenient fiction at times, but there are many downsides to this type of boundary blurring. I think you do the recipient a disservice by implying they have no agency—especially if they believe you. You also face the danger that your apology seems insincere or you misjudged their feelings, which could actually make matters worse.

I don’t really buy the idea that other people’s feelings are entirely within their own control and not at all within my control.

If we really had complete agency over our feelings then I guess we’d all just choose to feel great all the time. Doesn’t seem to work that way.

Suppose my sibling and I call each other 'ugly' as a greeting and we normally enjoy this behavior. If one day I feel hurt, is my sibling responsible for that feeling? If yes, is my sibling responsible for the depth of that feeling? Even if, on this particular day, I feel more hurt by the comment because I had just broken up with a partner? Is my sibling responsible for the duration of the feeling? Even if my response to the experience is to repeat the comment over and over in my head even after my sibling apologizes? Is my sibling responsible for all the decisions in my life (including encouraging that behavior) that have lead me to be sensitive to the comment in that moment? Am I powerless to change (whether in the near term or long term) how I respond to that comment, whether through meditation, therapy, confidence training or whatever? Am I also powerless to remove my sibling from my life?

In my view, the extent to which we can influence the emotions of another is the extent to which the recipient themselves has given implicit permission to do so; which is to say, they have agency. I don't think that simplifies into being able to choose to feel great any old time we like. I also don't think it at all excuses bad behavior or justifies a lack of empathy. But I will say that I feel a lot more good moments and less frequent and intense bad moments since I adopted this view and took responsibility for my own emotions.

This highlights the importance of apologizing for the impact something has, vs. just apologizing for the act itself.

There is no universal rule that can be applied to determine when one vs. the other is appropriate, but seemingly innocuous actions can have negative impact, and apologizing for the innocuous thing may not always make sense.

To be clear, this is not universally true. There are situations where apologizing for the action makes sense, and situations where the action that led to a negative outcome are either inconsequential on their own, or there might be a myriad of factors leading to the need for an apology.

Apologizing for the action can also come across as disingenuous or passive aggressive in the wrong context. This is especially true when the action is well-intentioned, but has the wrong effect. Taken to an extreme, this sounds like "I'm sorry I tried helping".

I think your sibling should apologize for hurting your feelings by calling you ugly.

That loss is accountability in action.

Agency returns as trust does.

"We're sorry for" =/= "We're sorry if..."

The phrasing is such that it acknowledges harm was done. It's an apology, full-stop.

You don't have to be a mind reader to see that this apology isn't an apology. They spend as much time justifying their actions as they do apologizing for the unintended outcomes, and they close by complaining that they've also been hurt.

Explaining intent isn't the same as justifying. That's projection.

Apologies are really difficult to do.

You have to acknowledge (in full) what it is that you are apologising for. That's the most important thing. Promises are meaningless.

It's not possible to "be genuine"; especially in a public post, nothing is genuine, everything is PR and smoke. Both the researchers and their ethics board need to grovel. If they did that, this tornado-in-a-teacup could be over in a month or two.

But keep those researchers banned.

No one should have to "grovel" for an apology to be effective.

The ethics board were asleep on the job. Grovelling is probably less painful than falling on your sword.