Ethically Challenged
Debates focused on ethics have been argued by many factions and seem to have been in an infinite loop since the idea of experimenting on humans began. Those who wish to further their progress by running trials on human subjects man the front for one side of the argument, and those who run the opposition to human experimentation provide resistance. The latter is held in control by the Institutional Review Board or IRB. But what happens if it is the same entity for both fields of the debate and the one who conducts these experiments are also in charge of denying others the same “progress”? The Guatemala Syphilis Experiment was conducted by the United States government for more than two years (1946 – 1948) in a foreign country …show more content…
Of the 1500 subjects deliberately and involuntarily infected with this disease, 86 reportedly found the disease to be fatal and only 26% of the 76% of patients being originally treated were able to continue the therapy for this experiment (Case One). Leading to believe the 50% that were unable to complete the medication was due to severe illness or death.
However, it was not until 2010, nearly 62 years later, that the United States granted a formal apology for this unethical experimentation on humans. Yet no consequences for John Charles Cutler or any other offenders has ever been recorded.
Fast forward to 2011, an Associate Professor at Brown University has come in unwanted conflict with the IRB. Jin Li began a four year long, privately funded, project among the parents of Chinese-American students. She was able to raise more than $830,000 through private organizations to fund her research (Case Four). However, when her research began, she noticed that lower-class subjects were more willing to take surveys than upper- and middle-class subjects. Li decided the best way to combat this and most equally realize the class difference would be to pay $600 to lower-class families and $300 to upper- and middle-class
Debates focused on ethics have been argued by many factions and seem to have been in an infinite loop since the idea of experimenting on humans began. Those who wish to further their progress by running trials on human subjects man the front for one side of the argument, and those who run the opposition to human experimentation provide resistance. The latter is held in control by the Institutional Review Board or IRB. But what happens if it is the same entity for both fields of the debate and the one who conducts these experiments are also in charge of denying others the same “progress”? The Guatemala Syphilis Experiment was conducted by the United States government for more than two years (1946 – 1948) in a foreign country …show more content…
Of the 1500 subjects deliberately and involuntarily infected with this disease, 86 reportedly found the disease to be fatal and only 26% of the 76% of patients being originally treated were able to continue the therapy for this experiment (Case One). Leading to believe the 50% that were unable to complete the medication was due to severe illness or death.
However, it was not until 2010, nearly 62 years later, that the United States granted a formal apology for this unethical experimentation on humans. Yet no consequences for John Charles Cutler or any other offenders has ever been recorded.
Fast forward to 2011, an Associate Professor at Brown University has come in unwanted conflict with the IRB. Jin Li began a four year long, privately funded, project among the parents of Chinese-American students. She was able to raise more than $830,000 through private organizations to fund her research (Case Four). However, when her research began, she noticed that lower-class subjects were more willing to take surveys than upper- and middle-class subjects. Li decided the best way to combat this and most equally realize the class difference would be to pay $600 to lower-class families and $300 to upper- and middle-class