Pros And Cons Of The Stanford Prison Experiment

I am against human experimentation. Many human experiments are psychological, though some are physical, both usually causing damage to the body and/or state of mind. My first point being the Stanford Prisoner experiment that took place in 1973. Psychiatrist, Philip Zimbardo chose 24 out of 75 undergraduates and randomly assigned them roles as guards and prisoners in a mock prison on campus. They adapted to their roles within a manner of days,1/3 of the 'guards' began to show agressive and sadistic tendencies towards the 'prisoners', while the 'prisoners' grew submissive and obedient tomares the 'guards'. Two undergraduate 'prisoners' had been removed early because of emotional and mental trauma caused by their time in the mock prison. This experiment was planned to last two weeks but was ended at the six day mark, eight days before the scheduled end, showing how quickly a normal person can change due to certain circumstances. …show more content…
Stimocever was invented by a Professor at Yale, Jóse Delgado, Stimocever is a radio implanted in the brain meant to control ones actions, though it was proven effective on a charging bull, caused strange stimulation for a woman who had stopped looking after herself, along with some difficulties with basic motor functions, and this woman even developed an ulcer on her finger from turning the amplitude dial at a constant rate. Though these are only two examples of human experimentation, the Stanford prisoners experiment is an example of the mental or emotional trauma that can be caused by human experimentation and the Stimocever is an example of the physical damage that can be