Monkey Drug Trials 1969 Case Study

One research study conducted in the United States that violated the rights of subjects or involved ethical misconduct was the Willowbrook study.  This study was conducted from the mid 1950's to the mid 1970's where Dr. Saul Krugman intentionally introduced hepatitis to mentally challenged patients where they were institutionalized (Rothman, 1982).   According to Rothman (1982), Dr Krugman states; "It is our duty and our right to perform an experiment on man whenever it can save his life, cure him or gain him some personal benefit” (p. 6).  This type of practice is not only unethical with no justification for the study, it did cause harm to a vulnerable population.  The participants in this study not only contracted hepatitis, they suffered complications from hepatitis,

First a method was developed, to teach the monkeys how to self- administer the drugs through intravenous catheters. Then the psychologist injected the monkeys for the first time the drugs. Because they were several monkeys each one received a different drug, some received cocaine, morphine, amphetamines,

The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee vs. Scopes but given the nickname “The Monkey Trial”, has been credited as starting the popular legal dispute between evolution and creationism in the court, and its impact in the 20’s was immeasurable.

The Scopes Trial: A Brief History with Documents by Jeffrey P. Moran is a book that details the significant events that transpired in the Scopes Trial on 1925. The book, in part II, highlights eight days of the proceedings in regards to the Scopes Trial that occurred from July 10, 1925 to July 21, 1925. Furthermore, a couple of newspapers relating to the proceedings were scattered across as well. In part III, a plethora of documents, cartoons, and newspapers are showcased extensively pertaining to the Scopes Trial. Three documents that have stood out were Who Shall Control Our Schools? by William Jennings Bryan and Tennessee Can Dictate Curriculum, Not Answers by R.S. Woodworth.

The most important information in this article is that there are significant neuroimaging, lesion, pharmacological, and genetic studies that provide information on stuttering, however the etiology and pathophysiology of stuttering remains incomplete. The article explored research on persistent developmental stuttering (PDS), which manifests in children between the ages of 2 and 4, in which boys have a higher rate of persistence than girls. Moreover, the authors provided features of the development, fluency-inducing conditions, associated symptoms, genetic etiologies, and neural correlates. Genetic studies on PDS demonstrated a genetic correlation, although no single gene has been identified, characterizing PDS as a polygenetic disorder. Additionally, brain imaging studies have revealed abnormalities in the role of the cerebellum, the anterior cingulate cortex (AAC), the supplementary motor area, and the right frontal operculum. During silent and oral reading tasks pre- and post-treatment, people who stutter had greater cerebellar activation and abnormal right lateralization as oppose to people who do not stutter, which could be related to a reduction in automaticity in articulatory movements and an increase in sensory or motor monitoring. Further discussion of cortical regions provided a connection between the limbic system and sensorimotor cortex, in which AAC activation during silent reading tasks decreased following fluency-inducing treatment. PDS has also been associated with the reduction of white matter below the left sensorimotor cortex, while acquired neurogenic stuttering (ANS) is associated with lesions in subcortical brain regions. Additionally, ANS can occur during a head injury in which the midbrain and subthalamic nucleus are affected by rotational forces producing diffuse injuries in basal ganglia pathways. ANS has also been associated with the thalamus in which patients who had stimulation of the thalamus and corpus callosum presented with speech

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.

The experiment undertaken by Stanley Milgram in 1963 was supposed to answer some questions about obedience and raised some questions and answered some. At the time, that Milgram underwent the experiment, a Nazi war criminal was being trialed. Milgram wanted this experiment to answer whether this Nazi criminal and his followers were just accomplices to Hitler during the Holocaust or did they have some responsibility to it as well.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was created by Philip G. Zimbardo, a psychologist, and professor who taught at Stanford. The experiment's goal was to study how easily one will adapt to roles that are assigned to them. The study began with volunteers who were randomly assigned to become either prisoners or guards. It didn’t take long for the guards to harass the prisoners. On the second day of the experiment, the prisoners started to rebel and test the guard’s boundaries. In an attempt to keep the prisoners in line, the guards started to use physical violence; which was against the rules. The guards became more and more violent every day, the amount of abuse the guards displayed was totally unexpected.

The study consisted of 95 PWS between the ages of 18 and 61, and 216 Peopoe with no stutter (PWNS) between the age of 18 and 72. The ratio for males

The majority of animal research is not drug testing but simple research and genetically modifying animals. Half of all animal experiments are conducted at universities and colleges by students. Animal use in scientific testing can be dated back to at least as far as the 17th century with the Harvey experiments aiming to demonstrate blood circulation. The Cruelty to Animals Act was passed in 1876 by parliament. This was the first legislation aimed at regulating animal experiments. Many tests often produce inaccurate or misleading results, even if a product has blinded an animal it can still be marked to you. Animal testing is no longer a justified method of testing for science for the fact of the new innovative cross-disciplinary technology,

The monster study is an experiment started in 1939 in the University of Lowa by Wendell Johnson. Orphans children were the victim in this study, and the study was about pre-existing stutters. There was 2 groups, 5 in each group, and Group A were told to speak normally, and they been sported by their speech. However, Group B were the opposite. The children in group B were disheartened by their speech, and talk about their speech negatively.

The Little Albert experiment is seen as very unethical now, but in 1920 helped out psychologist. It was run by John B. Watson and one of his students, Rosalie Rayner. At the John Hopkins University, Watson and Rayner’s goal was to condition certain phobias into a perfectly normal child. Watson was testing Pavlov’s theory on humans, not dogs. They chose a nine month old baby who they called “Albert,” or “Little Albert.”

“Before the experiment Little Albert was given a lot of emotional test. The experiment started when the child was at the age of nine months. Albert was showed by Waston and rayner a series of a white rat, a monkey, masks a rabbit and burning newspaper. Before the experiment

Scientist wanted to understand the dangers of drugs and the addiction that comes with them. In 1969, a group of scientist named Deneau, Yanagita and Seevers began the Monkey Drug Trials in an unknown location. Since you couldn’t experiment with humans they choose monkeys and rats. The groups of animals were taught how to inject themselves with drugs. They had an unlimited supply of drugs such as morphine, alcohol, cocaine, crystal meth, and amphetamines. At times they would combine the drugs like cocaine and morphine.

Many speech language pathologists (SLPs), after diagnosing a child with stuttering are left with the problems of what treatment program should be implemented and what are the chances that the