Sociological Research: The Ethical Use Of Human Experiments

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,

The scientific method and rules of ethics are important tools when researching and experimenting. When researchers abide by these guidelines, experimentation is considered to be safe for the test subjects, as well as the person conducting the research is considered reputable. Experiments go awry, however, when researchers ignore the scientific method and rules of ethics. The experiments of Alfred Kinsey and the scientific team of William Masters and Virginia Johnson have been criticized for their methods of research and sense of ethics. Both scientific teams researched human sexuality, a topic in which is perpetually scrutinized. Kinsey and Masters and Johnson were not always ethical in their studies, and did not always follow the

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

More importantly, this research study helped avoid future poorly constructed social experiments from occurring again. A bad evil was done to help further understanding and prevention.

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

Dating back to 1965, seventy-five prisoners at Holmesburg prison in Pennsylvania were purposely exposed to a poisonous agent. This study was conducted to determine the effects of dioxin, a potentially harmful substance. Dermatologist Dr. Albert Kligman, exposed prisoners to a dosage 468 times greater than the required dosage for the experiment. All evidence has been destroyed; however, participants are still experiencing dermatologic issues. As a result of research and experiments like these conducted in prisons, the Department of Health,

Controversy is a disagreement that usually occurs when one or both sides has a strong disagreement towards another sides opinion. Common controversial topics can range from issues such as abortion to issues such as marriage equality; whichever the case, we encounter controversial discussions daily. One topic that I tend to encounter more so than others is the discussion regarding animal experimentation. I live as a vegetarian, a lifestyle I have been living for approximately 2 years, and due to this identity I tend to find myself surrounded by other friends who live the vegetarianism or veganism lifestyle. Most of our conversation topics revolve around animal rights and where people should “draw the line” so to speak, in our society. So, for

Throughout history there are many examples of humans conducting experiments on other humans. Over the years human experimentation has greatly advanced the knowledge of human physiology and psychology, leading to better treatments for ailments both physical and mental as well as a better overall understanding of the human constitution. Despite all of the good which human experimentation has done for the human race there have been times when experimenters have taken human experimentation past the bounds of morality. This unethical human experimentation is most often caused when the experimenters are, in some way, able to justify their experiments.

Many people are unaware of the vile human experiments the United States government has conducted. Innocent men, women, and children became victims of these experiments without their consent or knowledge. These people were soldiers, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, daughters and sons who were maltreated and even murdered. It is vital for not only citizens of the United States of America to be aware of how their government tortured its own citizens, but also people around the world from every country there is. Being aware and educated about the revolting history of any country can prevent what ever happened from occurring again in the future. Through various human experiments dating back to the 1930’s

Because none of the participants were truly volunteers their actions and subsequent test results must not be considered ethically accurate when comparing them to society in general. Continuing on, the setting in which the participants were observed was a foreign setting all with employing behaviors unique to that of a scientist (Baurimd, 1964).

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

Although experts are much more educated in their respective fields of knowledge, they are not perfect. An expert is someone who has dedicated an exceptional amount of time and effort into studying and exploring their subject matter. Thus their analysis can be seen as more qualified and trustworthy. However, no matter how rigorous the expert is, there will always be a certain degree of subjectivity within their discipline. Giving weight to different facts and ideas can cause a whole new perspective or interpretation to come about. This is especially apparent in areas of knowledge such as religious knowledge systems, morals, and other such subjects prone to ‘gray-area’ analysis. These two areas of knowledge shall be analyzed in detail, including

Human experimentation has been a major part of human history throughout the world. It is the practice of subjecting live human beings to science experiments that are sometimes cruel, painful, or deadly. (#1) Medical milestones have been made with these experiments on humans, but the inhumane treatments have remained a secret. Human experimentation dates back to the 1800s and is still continuing today. During the rise of infectious diseases, doctors were committed to invent and test cures for the greater good of society.

Human experimentation can make the world a better place. Diseases can be cured, research is beneficial to the public. I'm going to tell you why human experimentation is beneficial. It is beneficial, because it could save more lives then destroy lives.Experimenting humans can find new and more effective treatments, like a type of disease. Also by doing this you find symptoms of a disease. Another reason why human experimentation is valuable is, tests subjects get paid and they feel good for helping discover a new medication. The more people keep getting tested the more they feel like they are helping more people.Human life span can increase. It can cure worldwide diseases like Ebola. There not that much people with Ebola, so that's how human experimentation finds out treatments for it, and how to prevent some type of disease. This is why human experimentation can benefit our world.

Denis Diderot once said, “There are three principal means of acquiring knowledge... observation of nature, reflection, and experimentation. Observation collects facts; reflection combines them; experimentation verifies the result of that combination.” Denis Diderot discusses the overall way to obtain information. When wanting to know statistics, numerous experiments need to be performed in order to provide accurate results. Through the abundant of experiments performed, human experimentation is one of those tests. Upon hearing the words “human experimentation,” individuals automatically assume grotesque, immoral, and unethical tests being conducted on people. However, this is untrue because experimenting on humans is beneficial to the citizens