What Is Human Experimentation?Ethics of Human Experimentation
What Is Human Experimentation?
Ethics of Human Experimentation
Human experimentation is a systematic, scientific investigation where human beings serve as subjects in either medical (clinical) or non-medical research. Human subject research can be interventional or observational. This research method led to many revolutionary advances ever since its first use at the end of the 18th century.
In an observational research, investigators record their observations and analyze data without administering an intervention. Observational studies focus on aspects such as risk factors, disease progression, and disease treatments. Human subject research in the social sciences, for example, may involve surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups.
On the other hand, in an interventional research, investigators manipulate the subjects or their environment in order to modify specific processes or results. The most common human intervention studies are clinical trials in which new drugs and vaccines are being evaluated.
Examples of Human Experimentation
Human experiments were used extensively throughout the twentieth century. They were subject to both fame, controversy, and rage. Let’s have a look at some of the best-known experiments performed on humans.
As a country doctor, Jenner was aware of the fact that milkmaids rarely caught smallpox. However, since they were in frequent contact with cows, they often contracted cowpox. Jenner speculated that cowpox produced immunity against smallpox. To prove this theory, he injected fluid from a cowpox infection into the skin of his gardener’s son, eight-year-old James Phipps. When several weeks later Jenner exposed the boy to smallpox, he found that James has indeed become immune to the disease.
In 1932, scientists at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama started studying the natural progression of syphilis, a disease that represented a major health problem at the time. Six hundred black men were enrolled in the project that lasted for four decades; two-third of them had the disease.
The subjects of the study, officially known as the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, were not informed about the research. Instead, they were led to believe that they were receiving treatment for “bad blood”—a term that was used to describe several serious illnesses at the time—and promised free medical care and burial insurance as an incentive.
The men were given only placebos such as aspirin and mineral supplements. They were not treated for syphilis, although penicillin became an effective cure for the disease in 1947. As a result, many participants died from complications of syphilis. The survivors were given treatment in 1972, after the nature of the study became publicly known.
Henrietta Lacks was a poor and uneducated African American tobacco farmer from Baltimore, Maryland with cervical cancer. In 1951, scientists at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins Hospital collected cells from her tissue sample without her knowledge.
In 1961, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram carried out what has become one of the best-known studies of obedience in psychology. Milgram conducted a series of experiments to determine to what extent people are willing to obey instructions that involve harming others.
Participants inMilgram’s experimentwere asked to be “teachers” to a group of people placed in a separate room. They were instructed to administer an electric shock to “learners” every time they answer a question incorrectly. With every new incorrect answer, they were to increase the intensity of the electric shock, without realizing that the shocks were not real.
Despite Milgram’s expectations that no one would accept administering strong electric shocks to the learners, to his surprise, 65% of participants obeyed the instructions until the very end of the experiment, going all the way up to 450 volts.
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo was the author of theinfamous 1971 social psychology experimentthat investigated the psychological effects of perceived power. Zimbardo was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to their personality traits or was mostly situational and had to do with the prison environment.
Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology department into a “prison” and recruited volunteers to take part in a study of the psychological effects of prison life. Prisoners were arrested at their homes without warning and taken to the local police station, after which they were blindfolded and put in prison. Guards were instructed to do whatever was necessary to maintain law and order among prisoners except for resorting to physical violence.
The Stanford prison experiment revealed that people readily conformed to the stereotypical social roles they were expected to play. When they were placed in a position of authority, prison guards began to act in ways they would not usually behave.
The human growth hormone (hGH) was originally made available in the late 1950s to treat hormone-deficient children who would otherwise remain extremely short. Until the 1980s, only children lacking the hGH were eligible to receive the treatment.
With the rise of genetic engineering, however, the hormone has become more readily available. At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the growth hormone has been administered also to perfectly healthy children who are short for their age, in spite of the fact that the procedure poses significant physical and psychological risks.
There is no doubt that research involving human subjects is indispensable and has led to an improvement in the quality of lives and numerous medical breakthroughs. At the same time, as the above examples show, human experimentation has often been on the limit of what is ethically acceptable.
So how can researchers achieve a balance and justify exposing individual human subjects to risk for the sake of the advancement of science?
Ethical guidelines for human research
Ethical guidelines for regulating the use of human subjects in research were developed in response to numerous unethical experiments carried out throughout the 20th century. In the past sixty years, there has been a rapid emergence of various codes, regulations, and acts to govern ethical research in humans. In addition, several organizations were put in place to help monitor human experimentations.
The Nuremberg Code
The Nuremberg Code is a set of international rules and research ethics principles that were created to protect human test subjects. The code was established in 1947 as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. Originally, the code aimed to protect human subjects from any cruelty and exploitation similar to what the prisoners endured during the war.
The Nuremberg Code remains the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research. It serves as a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in human experimentation.
The Belmont report
The Belmont Report provides the moral framework for understanding regulations on the use of humans in experimental methods in the United States.
Food and Drug Administration regulations
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the highest authority of human subjects protection in research in the United States. The FDA regulations for the conduct of clinical trials have been in effect since the 1970s. These regulations require informing participants in an experiment that they could be used as control subjects or given a placebo, and that in certain cases alternative therapies may exist, and obtaining their written consent.
Ethics committees
To protect the rights and well-being of research participants, and at the same time allow obtaining meaningful results and insights into human behavior, all current biomedical and psychological research must go through a strict ethical review process.
Ethics committees assess and review trial designs. They approve, review, and monitor all research involving humans. Their task is to verify that subjects are not exposed to any unnecessary risks according to the key ethical guidelines including the assurance of confidentiality, informed consent, and debriefing.
Ethics committees in the European Union are bodies responsible for oversight of medical or human research studies in EU member states.
Institutional review boards
In the United States, ethics committees are usually known as institutional review boards. Institutional review boards (IRB), also called ethical review boards, are independent ethics committees that review Health and Human Services research proposals involving human subjects. The aim of the institutional review board is to ensure that the proposals meet the ethical foundations of the regulations.
Related posts:The Psychology of Long Distance RelationshipsOperant Conditioning (Examples + Research)Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)Variable Interval Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)Concrete Operational Stage (3rd Cognitive Development)
Related posts:
Reference this article:Practical Psychology. (2020, June).Human Experimentation List (in Psychology).Retrieved from https://practicalpie.com/human-experimentation-list/.Practical Psychology. (2020, June). Human Experimentation List (in Psychology). Retrieved from https://practicalpie.com/human-experimentation-list/.Copy
Reference this article:
Practical Psychology. (2020, June).Human Experimentation List (in Psychology).Retrieved from https://practicalpie.com/human-experimentation-list/.Practical Psychology. (2020, June). Human Experimentation List (in Psychology). Retrieved from https://practicalpie.com/human-experimentation-list/.Copy
Copy
