suggesting how global research could have been improved through the application

suggesting how global research could have been improved through the application of ethical best practices.
ONE RESPONSE EACH
1. Many significant studies have been conducted and categorized as unethical research throughout history. Laud Humphrey’s ” Tearoom Trade Study: Impersonal Sex in Public Places ” took place in the 1960s and preceded the creation of the National Commission and the Codification of federal regulations protecting human rights, better known as the Belmont Report. The research was conducted in a different regulatory environment that directly violated several ethical principles of his subjects.
Humphrey, at the time, was a student researcher who manipulated the men who visited the tearoom and engaged in casual sexual encounters with other men and gained their trust by posing as a participant. Humphrey was well aware most of these men were married and recorded their license plate numbers in the vicinity of 100 men enabling him to contact the subjects for interviews. The initial study was concluded after a year. This was when Humphrey began getting his issues for a social health survey which allowed him to acquire data about the men’s family and religious backgrounds. To prevent his true identity from being revealed, he changed his appearance.
Humphrey’s research was deemed unethical due to its violation of ethical principles, later highlighted in the Belmont Report. Basic principles that were violated were Respect for persons and Beneficence. Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions first, individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2023). Beneficence is treating others ethically by respecting their decisions, protecting them from harm, and ensuring their well-being (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023). These principles were breached when he posed as a participant, not as a researcher, and posed risks of exposure to these men which would cause embarrassment to families.
Humphrey’s research is deemed unethical research given the nature of how it was acquired. Humphreys posed a risk to his subjects’ livelihood and harm to their social and economic status. Many significant studies have been conducted and categorized as unethical research throughout history. Laud Humphrey’s ” Tearoom Trade Study: Impersonal Sex in Public Places ” took place in the 1960s and preceded the creation of the National Commission and the Codification of federal regulations protecting human rights, better known as the Belmont Report. The research was conducted in a different regulatory environment that directly violated several ethical principles of his subjects.
Humphrey, at the time, was a student researcher who manipulated the men who visited the tearoom and engaged in casual sexual encounters with other men and gained their trust by posing as a participant. Humphrey was well aware most of these men were married and recorded their license plate numbers in the vicinity of 100 men enabling him to contact the subjects for interviews. The initial study was concluded after a year. This was when Humphrey began getting his issues for a social health survey which allowed him to acquire data about the men’s family and religious backgrounds. To prevent his true identity from being revealed, he changed his appearance.
Humphrey’s research was deemed unethical due to its violation of ethical principles, later highlighted in the Belmont Report. Basic principles that were violated were Respect for persons and Beneficence. Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions first, individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2023). Beneficence is treating others ethically by respecting their decisions, protecting them from harm, and ensuring their well-being (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023). These principles were breached when he posed as a participant, not as a researcher, and posed risks of exposure to these men which would cause embarrassment to families.
Humphrey’s research is deemed unethical research given the nature of how it was acquired. Humphreys posed a risk to his subjects’ livelihood and harm to their social and economic status.
2. It is difficult to imagine people being used in experiments for the use of medical advancement. Clinical studies typically will pay a stipend and is a completely voluntary basis. Before there were regulations and protocols, physicians and researchers conducted many unethical experiments and research studies on numerous humans, many being vulnerable populations.
On example of an unethical study was the 1936 Monster Study which was a study conducted by a speech pathologist named Dr. Wendell Johnson who wanted to examine why children developed stutters. Dr. Johnson wanted to learn if stuttering was a learned behavior or biological in nature. Dr. Johnson’s study population included 22 orphans, some of whom stuttered and some non-stutters. When evaluating the two groups of orphans the ‘normal speakers’ were praised for their speech even if they had mistakes in speech. The orphans in the ‘stutters’ group were berated regarding their speech. The staff was also unaware of the actual procedures of the study. Many of the orphans were left with psychological trauma.
The Belmont Report speaks about the regulation of voluntariness. Dr. Johnson had the ‘permission’ of the staff of the orphanage but did not give specifics on what the study entailed. Minors are unable to given consent of their own and these orphans did not have parents or guardians to give their consent. The lasting effects of the Monster Study were psychological trauma and in some cases the subjects not wanting to speak much in life. The University of Iowa was sued after Dr. Johnson had passed away. The University of Iowa made a formal apology. Dr. Johnson may have had well intentions for this study, but it lacked a significant real-world cause, except to study the misunderstood stutter of people. Imagine what other researchers would do for bigger and more useful research and knowledge. Changes in the way research was conducted was the ‘Common Rule’ which entails that human subjects must be approved by an IRB and that the research protocol meets criteria relating to risk and benefit, subject selection, confidentiality, informed consent, and subject safety (Committee on Federal Research Regulations and Reporting Requirements, 2016).I