Research on Human Subjects: Is It a Problem?
Research on Human Subjects: Is it a problem?
Introduction: Conducting research on human subjects has been a way for researchers to test different drugs or vaccines and see their effect on humans. Animals are another way to test drugs; however it is difficult to determine what kind of affect it will have on humans. Testing on human subjects in today’s society can be difficult because of laws that have been put into place. The subject has to sign a consent form, know exactly what will be done to them, and what the consequences/benefits of the study are. Research studies using human subjects need to ethical meaning the study should not cause them emotional stress, revoke their civil rights, or cause harm to themselves or others. Many people participate in testing in order to get money quick or because they want to test out a new drug that could benefit them or someone they know. Global human testing is being done as well. Many of these tests are being done in third world countries on volunteers because they want to find a cure/treatment that will benefit themselves or their children. The problem with testing globally is volunteers with similar backgrounds may skew the results, and if the trial does work many of them cannot afford the treatment because of the cost. Research should be conducted on human participants as long as the experimenter has their consent and the participants know exactly what is going to be done to them, in the case of possible mortality it should ultimately be up to the participant if they want to take that risk. Also, the human subjects should not be damaged emotionally or cause harm to themselves or others in the study they participate in.
Research on Human Subjects:
Conducting research on human subjects can be risky because there are many precautions that have to be taken in order for the testing to be ethical. A study was conducted many years ago where the subjects were put under false pretenses. Stanley Milgram’s “Behavioral Study
Introduction: Conducting research on human subjects has been a way for researchers to test different drugs or vaccines and see their effect on humans. Animals are another way to test drugs; however it is difficult to determine what kind of affect it will have on humans. Testing on human subjects in today’s society can be difficult because of laws that have been put into place. The subject has to sign a consent form, know exactly what will be done to them, and what the consequences/benefits of the study are. Research studies using human subjects need to ethical meaning the study should not cause them emotional stress, revoke their civil rights, or cause harm to themselves or others. Many people participate in testing in order to get money quick or because they want to test out a new drug that could benefit them or someone they know. Global human testing is being done as well. Many of these tests are being done in third world countries on volunteers because they want to find a cure/treatment that will benefit themselves or their children. The problem with testing globally is volunteers with similar backgrounds may skew the results, and if the trial does work many of them cannot afford the treatment because of the cost. Research should be conducted on human participants as long as the experimenter has their consent and the participants know exactly what is going to be done to them, in the case of possible mortality it should ultimately be up to the participant if they want to take that risk. Also, the human subjects should not be damaged emotionally or cause harm to themselves or others in the study they participate in.
Research on Human Subjects:
Conducting research on human subjects can be risky because there are many precautions that have to be taken in order for the testing to be ethical. A study was conducted many years ago where the subjects were put under false pretenses. Stanley Milgram’s “Behavioral Study
References: Milgram, Stanley.1963. “Behavioral Study of Obedience.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy Zimbardo, Phillip G. 1973. “A Pirandellian prison.” The New York Times Magazine. (April 8): http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/pirandellian.pdfchology. 67(4):371-378. Humphries, Laud. 1970. “Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places.” Society. Krugman, Saul. 1986. “The Willowbrook Hepatitis Studies Revisited: Ethical Aspects.” Reviews of Infectious Diseases. 8(1): 157-162. Tännsjö, Torbjörn. “The Morality of Clinical Research: A Case Study. In Singer, P., & Kuhse, H. (Eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology (pp. 525-532). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Lurie, Peter and Sidney M. Wolfe. “Unethical Trials of Interventions to Reduce Perinatal Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Developing Countries.” In Singer, P., & Kuhse, H. (Eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology (pp. 533-538). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Bagenda, Danstan, and Philippa Musoke-Mudido. “We’re Trying to Help Our Sickest People, Not Exploit Them.” In Singer, P., & Kuhse, H. (Eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology (pp. 539-540). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.