[Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees]
[Institutional Affiliation(s)]
[Include any grant/funding information and a complete correspondence address.]
Ethical Principle violations
Tuskegee Study (1932-1972)
Withholding treatment from the participants (patients with syphilis) in the Tuskegee study after a definitive treatment (Penicillin) became available in the late 1930s was a violation of all ethical principles: “respect for persons (autonomy)”, beneficence (protecting from harm) and justice (denying a benefit)(CDC, n.d.).
An overview of questionable studies
The experiments conducted by German scientists on concentration camp prisoners without their consent is a violation of all the above principles. The secret researches conducted between 1944-1980s on the effects of radiation on human beings, violated the principle of autonomy and the requirement of informed consent before participation in a human subject research. Watson and Crick’s extraction of X-ray diffraction data from Rosalind Franklin without her permission violated the principles of respect for persons and autonomy. The Willow brook experiments, which involved hepatitis research on mentally disabled children, were a violation of the principles of justice and autonomy. The Milgram psychological experiments conducted on normal human beings without their consent was a violation of their autonomy. When Summerlin fabricated data, it was academic fraud. When the NASA withheld information from the Challenger space shuttle crew about machinery failure, it was a violation of the principles of autonomy. Not revealing to the general public the toxic effects of tobacco before 1994 was again a violation of the principle of autonomy. In 1995, when Boots Pharmaceuticals asked Betty Dong to retract a paper on the effectiveness of Synthroid, it was asking her to conduct academic fraud. When Jesse Gelsinger died during a clinical trial, where neither he nor his family were given full information, it was a violation of the principles of respect for persons and justice(Yarborough & Sharp, 2009). The CHEER study which was withheld by the EPA in 2004, planned to intentionally expose children to pesticides, which would have been a violation of the ethical principle of beneficence. When Susan Reverby revealed the unethical US Government experiments in Guatemala, the principles violated by this research were beneficence, justice and autonomy. In 2014, Nature retracted a paper which had been prepared using fraud(Beauchamp, 2008; Resnik, 2014)
Implications The study on pollution and respiratory diseases would be conducted only after a full IRB approval of the research(Parvizi, Tarity, Conner, & Smith, 2007). It would recruit human participants after full voluntary informed consent has been taken from each of them. If there are participants incapable of taking independent decisions, they will either be excluded from the study or have the consent of a legally authorized representative acting on their behalf. The well being of research participants will be ensured by not harming any of them through the research and by maximizing possible benefits to them. No benefit to which a research participant might be entitled to will be denied or unnecessary burdens imposed, without good reason. Any vulnerable participant will be recruited into the research only after careful thought and adequate protections. The entire research will be conducted after consideration of the ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence and justice(Mill & Ogilvie, 2002).
References
Beauchamp, T. (2008). The Belmont Report. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, 1–10. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vKFYAtcLAxgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA149&dq=The+belmont+report&ots=Ik-b2WdUi3&sig=47hU6RE074DjZSisJIZPdP_4a7s\nhttp://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vKFYAtcLAxgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA149&dq=The+Belmont+Report&ots=Ik-b2WdUj5&sig=SZO0TZ8UPp-BuSBhzezjY_QJOuE
CDC. (n.d.). Tuskegee Study and Health Benefit Program - CDC - NCHHSTP. CDC. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/
Mill, J. E., & Ogilvie, L. D. (2002). Ethical Decision Making in International Nursing Research. Qualitative Health Research. doi:10.1177/10432302012006007
Parvizi, J., Tarity, T. D., Conner, K., & Smith, J. B. (2007). Institutional review board approval: why it matters. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 89, 418–426. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00362
Resnik, D. B. (2014). Research Ethics Timeline (1932-Present). Bioethics. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/timeline/index.cfm
Yarborough, M., & Sharp, R. R. (2009). Public trust and research a decade later: What have we learned since Jesse Gelsinger’s death? Molecular Genetics and Metabolism, 97, 4–5. doi:10.1016/j.ymgme.2009.02.002
