Anthropological Regulations

The central ethical conflicts of the Clara’s case are several infringements committed regarding human rights in human experimentation. According to the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics [APA] (2010) experiments such as Clara would have violated several sections from standard 8: 8.01 (obtaining institutional approval), 8.02 (participants’ informed consent), 8.04 (client/patient, student, and subordinate respect to continue in research), 8.07 (deception in research), and 8.09 (humane care). Section 8.01 indicates that researchers must obtain approval prior

For example, the British Army tested on the Irish and the natives to see the effects of mustard gas on different skin colors. The United States tested infectious diseases on the army by contaminating them via injection. None of these incidents brought upon changes in laws or regulations. Only one main research abomination caused a set of rules to be established. It was 1947; German doctors conducted experiments on the concentration camps’ population. Experiments were often deadly or highly debilitating. After the war was over, these doctors were prosecuted. These trials came to be known as the Nuremberg Trials which allowed for the Nuremberg Code to be created and enforced world-wide. This code states that any subject who participates in an experiment must give voluntary consent and that it is absolutely essential for any medical trial to continue. This was a break-through in moral codes. However, in this day and age we still manage to see researchers finding loop holes in order to bypass this code. More scrutiny of testing rules must be applied.

“2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subject’s potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity of disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person of it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those legitimately speak for him.” (CCC; 29/05/14)

The first ethical principle stated by the Belmont Report is respect for persons. “Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection” (The Belmont Report). The researcher must respect the subjects decisions and be obliged to allow them to take part of the experiment voluntarily. The second

Anthropology, as a discipline in the field of human sciences, is based on certain ethical principles to guide its practitioners through their research. This creates a stable framework on which to start any research project. Avoiding deviation, however, can be complicated. Anthropologists have a responsibility to their field,

Human testing ethics has been a prominent topic in science. There’s an extent to human testing. If it’s just a plain old test online asking basic questions about their everyday life, that fits into the category of OK. If it’s an experiment involving orphans who are scolded for every little flaw and deformity in their speech for six months. That’s past the line. I’m astonished that that even was thought of. You can’t do that in the “name of science.” There’s been numerous accounts of scandals in the topic of human testing. Gas chamber experiments involving 210,000 civilians, Tuskegee studies, and unnecessary experiments on children and adults. If you wouldn’t test it on yourself then you shouldn’t be conducting that experiment. Many of the issues

The most common and classical issues relate to human subjects, invasion of privacy, confidentiality of records and interviews, accessibility of data, and immunity from prosecutions (Wolfgang, 1981). Unethical methods in research can be traced back to World War II, when human subjects were tortured and killed in the name of research. In other studies, people were used as guinea pigs for drug testing, infected with diseases, exposed to cold temperatures and high altitudes (Higgins, 2009). The Nuremberg Code was the first set of standards to address the unethical research on human participants and provided provisions for their well being. The code states that (1) voluntary informed consent is essential without coercion, (2) expected outcome should justify the experiments, (3) experiment should be conducted by qualified scientists, (4), experiment should be conducted in a way that avoids all unnecessary physical and mental suffering or injury, and (5) there should be no expectation of death or disabling injury from the experiment (Schuster, 1997). The Nuremberg Code has served as a model for the United States federal regulations of informed consent of the research subject but also peer review of research protocols by a committee on the institution review board of the research institution (Schuster,

Hope Ferdowsian and Nancy Beck, authors of the article “Ethical and scientific considerations regarding animal testing and research”, published in the journal PLoS ONE argued that scientists should consider whether or not testing on animals is ethical in hopes to lessen the usage of animals for experiments. Hope Ferdowsian is a member of the “physicians committee for responsible medicine” (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011, P. 1) in Washington DC. She studied international affairs, and currently advocates for animal rights, while Nancy Beck works in the“department of medicine” (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011, P. 1) at George Washington University. Both authors suggest that scientists use the “3R’s” (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011, P. 1), also known as reducing the

There have been many advancements in the medical field that have originated from human experimentation. Once the harsh natures of human experimentation reached the light of the press there were major pushes for reform. It has been noted that over the past few decades there have been over one thousand new rules, regulations and guidelines have been established to help protect patients (Gorski). In the United States specifically, there are rules to protect subjects during every process of federal or federally funded lab tests (Gorski). As well, most of the information and testing done is by professionals from universities that have specific roles and goals to accomplish. “Dr.E.Albert Reese, dean of the School of Medicine, said that the studying of diseases was not just addressing a medical need but proving hope. “That’s really what this is all about: hope for patients, hope for families, hope for physicians and scientists,” he said. “ Hope for the community and indeed the world (

Animal experimentation today is much different than it was 100 years ago, it is still changing today, and will continue to change forever. Keeping to a moral high ground is difficult if a milestone is close to becoming met, people get greedy or overly ambitious. Pushing aside ethics to achieve a result is a very common and many times it has been beneficial for the greater good. Drawing a line for professionals to not cross is the best thing to protect the rights of individuals and animals. Many experiments go on across the world that increase the well being of humans, some impact humanity more than others. People need to develop a moral compass to keep animal experimentation humane, laws are a perfect example for guiding research.

To solve problems like this for human experimentation, easy guidelines can be and were made. First off, any experiment that could cause harm should not occur. Some items that are now searched for include, but are not limited to, valuing the life and dignity of a person, not harming the test subject physically or mentally long term, and upholding the rights in the constitution given to a person (Berdon). If the experiment is questionable, the experimenters should (and now do) go in front of a selected jury that’s primary job is to judge whether an experiment is acceptable or not. If ruled acceptable by the panel of judges, then the experiment should go on with the proper precautions. If the experimenters should get denied, then the experimenter should have a chance for a retrial.

Imagine being trapped in a cage for a lifetime. Picture being tortured through “experiments.” This is the life many animals in biomedical research are forced to live . Nowadays, most of the animal experiments are conducted on mice, rats, fish, and other animals that are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. Animal experiments cause psychological and physical harm to the animals with a complete lack of respect for their quality of life which is why they must be banned.

This topic was much discussed in the United States about twenty-five years ago. It has recently reemerged in the discussion of the European Convention on bioethics and there is a current discussion in the medical literature of the kinds of consent and experiments appropriate in the third world. This paper summarizes the U. S. discussion and "solution," presents the current European discussion, and concludes with a proposal for understanding and organizing the participation of dependent people in medical experiments.

According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, every year about 100 million animals will be used for lab testing in the United States.(PETA) These animals range from fish to horses, and everything in between; and although this type of experimentation endangers the lives of animals, still many argue that it greatly benefits mankind. The opposition believes that limiting animal experimentation will stop the progress they are making in science, and experimentation in laboratories isn't unruly. The American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, or AALAS, has established nine guidelines that all experimenters must follow when using animals; these guidelines were put in place to protect animals from being harmed. Although they were intended for the purpose of protecting animal rights, most scientists don’t comply with them. Cases of animal abuse and neglect have risen and are very common amongst laboratories. These guidelines created are not providing enough restrictions to prevent animal abuse in the laboratory setting. Solely using guidelines will not stop the abuse and neglect that goes on in these experiments.

II. for animal testing) Some would argue that testing on animals is inhumane and cruel, that it is going against their basic animal rights. But are we forgetting that the animals being experimented are protected