This is exactly why research that deals with humans at Universities invariably must pass a human subjects review process. "How else would we discover X?" is certainly not reason to subject anyone to an unethical experiment. Subjecting people to what you likely believe to be a bad date should very definitely raise red flags, even if the details in practice would pass a human subjects review.

And that's the trouble: there's a tremendous space of research that just isn't ethical to carry out on actual living humans. As such, we have to find methods to determine answers to those questions that don't breach ethical standards. The burdens of discovery must lie squarely on the researchers, not on the (often unwitting) experimental subjects.

It's actually far, far more invasive than what Uber did as they described it in the blog post.