If Little Albert Study Ethically Wrong

Personally, researching this experiment made me extremely uncomfortable just because I do not believe in causing unnecessary harm to someone who does not deserve it. In this case, harm is the unnecessary stress since the accomplice of the experiment was not actually shocked, he just acted like it. I think that the moderators of the experiment, especially Milgram, should have been upfront in the ad placed in the newspaper over what was going to actually be happening to the people who volunteered. The way the readings and the video made it sound was that it was just a surprise over what actually happened to the subjects. It is shocking to me that he thought that this was something that was morally and ethically right.

The participant was not given full disclose about the details of the experiment, making the research untruthful. Freedom was another principle that was violated since the participants’ ability to withdraw from the experiment was highly discouraged. Even though it was possible to withdraw, not much power was given to the participant. Lastly, Milgram was neither altruistic nor giving of dignity to the participant. Participants showed signs of stress and possible psychological damage due to the process of harming another individual, but that did not stop the experiment. Milgram instructed the participants to continue the study until the very end. In order to make this experiment more ethical, Milgram should have set up the experiment in a way that did not give the illusion of causing harm to another human being. Also, participants should have been able to withdraw from the experiment without questioning. Lastly, Milgram should have known to stop the study once he saw the participant showing signs of distress and pain. This is to cause less harm to the participant and promote

As if you walked a path and see what you could of done but didn’t. How could you have lived and not lived. You see your errors. Like when you are on a cliff looking down or on the clouds and looking down.

In this case study, there were a few incidents of violations of ethics. In 1998, Callahan recommends that researchers should follow the three ethical issues: Autonomy, beneficence, and human justice. Autonomy is the first ethical principle that a researcher should respect the participate and make sure that informed consent has been given. The participates of this study was not aware the risk or what the study was about and actually could not give consent legally because they were minors. Johnson and Tudor did not give full disclosure of this research to the minors, teachers, or matrons at the orphanage. Beneficence is the second ethical principle; the researcher should maximize

Frankenstein is a fictional story, however the universal theme of lack of ethics in scientific experimentation can be pulled from this story and applied to modern times. During World War 2, Nazi scientists performed grueling experiments, utterly blinded by what they were doing in a pursuit to learn the secrets of life. Joseph Mengele, infamously known as the “Angel of Death”, engaged in human

The first step of the five steps to being ethical is to make an ethical decision to gather facts. Charlie's doctors did not gather enough facts before the operation. An example is when they gave Charlie the operation after they tested on animals, especially the mouse, Algernon. The problem for this is that after a while, Algernon, and all the other animals tested, was losing their intelligence. Soon after this happened, Charlie lost his own. The doctors should've waited after they tested on animals

Algernon, a mouse that was one of the first successful animals to undergo the operation, had been studied by Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss, though they never concluded their studies - which makes their decision to experiment on Charlie unethical. Before experimenting on a human, it is common sense to finish testing to make sure that everything is safe and definite. In the essay, ‘Take Care: There’s More to Medical Ethics Than Absence of Harm’ Eric Kodish explains that “...as complex and complicated as issues are, doctors can help by asking themselves…: What do I need to do in order to take care of this person before me?”

Looking at the history of human research experiments necessitates investigation into the background; why is it not sufficient to simply to undertake an experiment merely to broaden scientific study and understanding? Are not the psychologists and scientists ethical and professional? The answer is quite simply, not always. While many psychologists may have started their experiments with the best of intentions, there were a number that merely seized opportunities that were in their grasp. Hence, there came the need for the Belmont Report and the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Code of Ethics in direct response to testing on human subjects.

The ethics of the study were however called into question (Banyard, 2012). One protestors among many was Diana Baumrind (Banyard, 2012). Baumrind (1964) argued whether the ‘welfare of the participants’ was considered Banyard (2012, p.79). Baumrind (1964) further criticised the experiment for the damage it could do the public’s perception of psychology (Banyard, 2012). In Milgram’s (1963) defence, he was not ignorant of the potential harm caused to participants, (Banyard, 2012). In fact, he was

Human experimentation has a history of scandal that often shapes people’s views of the ethics of research. Often the earliest cited case is English physician Edward Jenner’s development of the smallpox vaccine in 1796,where he injected an eight-year-old boy child with pus taken from a cowpox infection and then deliberately exposed her to an infected carrier of smallpox. Although Jenner’s experiment was successful and it confirmed his theory, the method of

The main ethical issue with this experiment was the use of deception as the participants did not know the truth behind this study. Participants believe that they were shocking the learners and they were under severe stress due to this is possible that they had suffered psychological injuries. The participants have the right to withdraw from the study if they wanted; however, this was not made clear to them. Also, participants did not receive enough information about the study.

Little Albert’s was chosen because of his strong emotional stability and researches think his personality could be “relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments…” (Wastson & Rayner, 1920, p. 3). However, from psychologists’ point of view, his emotional reaction was far from mild and experimenters did not put effort to comfort him (Smith & Haslam, 2012). Although the principles of classical conditioning are useful in treatment of phobias and even medical implications, it is questioned whether its worth to cause harm to the subject in order to complete the study. The unethical research method of classic studies brings potential damages to the participants (Russell & Purcell, 2009). The ignorance of such damages overrates the experimental result and conclusion. Studies should be morally and ethically grounded.

These horrible experiments were carried out even on children and many of them died and they did not stop to consider the value of human life and the families of the victims. Even though this was in the past, it did help many people realise that certain types of science experiments are barbaric, therefore should not be done, and it also led to scientists today considering what ethical implications their experiments will have, before conducting their

One might think that this experiment will stimulate the new research in the area of human obedience, but this did not occur. Despite the difficulties and the courage of Burger to conduct a partial replication of the original study, it did not produce any different outcomes and did not spark any new ideas in psychology (Burger, 2009). Instead, the researcher had to deal with an enormous amount of different commentaries and controversy. My main rationale for disapproving the Burger’s study is ethical characteristics of the Milgram paradigm. More specifically, now we have the Ethical Rules of the APA, which tell us that researchers should honor rights of participants to privacy, confidentiality and the right to withdraw the experiment. However, Milgram’s paradigm clearly challenges these fundamental rights and creates even more ethical dilemmas. Another rationale that I can include is the infliction of increasing pain on an unwilling participant, a characteristic that is unacceptable in modern psychological studies. Therefore, I would disapprove such experiment, because of ethical non-compliance and little contribution to the field. As for me, I view following ethical practices in my dissertation project work as a crucial element for success. It will allow me to produce reliable, meaningful and relevant scholarly data that would not be a subject to ethical

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.