Conclusion
As the Cold War finally began settling down, opinions on biochemical testing began to shift. No longer pushed by fear of Soviet attacks or triumph, the necessity of such extreme testing began to dwindle. This along with a decrease in major discoveries in medicine lead politicians and citizens alike to reconsider the morality of the various tests. The big debate centered upon whether the harm of the minority for the good of all was indeed moral. Although the Nuremberg trials introduced several standards for the ethics of human testing following World War II, it was not until the chemical weapons convention in 1993 where countries officially agreed to prevent the creation of and stockpiling of chemical weapons. Seen as a call for a …show more content…
Contrary to this belief, hindsight has given many the opportunity to review the past and claim responsibility for their mistakes. “All this is a frightening example of how thoughtlessly human beings, including physicians, can treat human beings for noble purposes”(Hornblum et al 223). Within the last quarter of the 20th century, human testing has sharply decreased in the United states due to increased laws and oversight. “No longer were orphanages, asylums or prisons available for research mills.” (Hornblum et al 227) In the end, it is argued that the end does not always justify the means. As I continue forward in my research, I will be exploring what rhetorical and arguments were made to society regarding chemical agents, and why they were so effective in producing this paradigm shift in such a small amount of time following the Cold War. I will be analyzing the direct appeals to the American people utilized by government officials and independent protest groups. The focus will regard how the Cold war provided the perfect atmosphere for fear to grow, and how different groups utilized this fear to argue both for and agents chemical
As the Cold War finally began settling down, opinions on biochemical testing began to shift. No longer pushed by fear of Soviet attacks or triumph, the necessity of such extreme testing began to dwindle. This along with a decrease in major discoveries in medicine lead politicians and citizens alike to reconsider the morality of the various tests. The big debate centered upon whether the harm of the minority for the good of all was indeed moral. Although the Nuremberg trials introduced several standards for the ethics of human testing following World War II, it was not until the chemical weapons convention in 1993 where countries officially agreed to prevent the creation of and stockpiling of chemical weapons. Seen as a call for a …show more content…
Contrary to this belief, hindsight has given many the opportunity to review the past and claim responsibility for their mistakes. “All this is a frightening example of how thoughtlessly human beings, including physicians, can treat human beings for noble purposes”(Hornblum et al 223). Within the last quarter of the 20th century, human testing has sharply decreased in the United states due to increased laws and oversight. “No longer were orphanages, asylums or prisons available for research mills.” (Hornblum et al 227) In the end, it is argued that the end does not always justify the means. As I continue forward in my research, I will be exploring what rhetorical and arguments were made to society regarding chemical agents, and why they were so effective in producing this paradigm shift in such a small amount of time following the Cold War. I will be analyzing the direct appeals to the American people utilized by government officials and independent protest groups. The focus will regard how the Cold war provided the perfect atmosphere for fear to grow, and how different groups utilized this fear to argue both for and agents chemical