Ethics occupies a vital area in human research. It governs the conducts of the scientists engaging in the research procedure. Applying ethical principles is critical because it ensures that the rights, dignity, and ethical principles of the participants are guarded. Ethics have become important especially in the wake of the unethical human experimentations that have been witnessed across the world. Some of the aspects that characterize unethical human experimentation include the lack of informed consent, deception, torture, and the use of pseudoscientific means. Two of the experiments that significantly deviated from the ethics of human research included the Zimbardo Prison Experiment (1971) and the Tuskegee Syphilis Studies (1932). The Zimbardo Prison Experiment on its part was marked with immense pain and suffering on the participants. In what started as an ethical experiment approved by ethical experiment, the research study ended up with immense physical abuse, a factor that led to its untimely end. The Tuskegee Syphilis Studies, on the other hand, was characterized by deception, harm, and a lack of informed consent among others. The discussion will focus on the comparison between the two experiments with a keen focus on the ethics and ethical rationale that informed the study.
Ethical Principles at Issue
According to Israel (2014), many research studies have been affected by unethical issues since the regulators lack the necessary understanding of how social science works including the relevant social, cultural, and political environments in which they operate. Ethical, social experiments require scientists to create natural environmental conditions in the research context. As such, this will allow experiments to flow naturally without the creation of artificial environments that could contribute to the deteriorated conditions on the participants. Zimbardo et al., (1973) was interested in evaluating whether the brutality experienced in the American prisons was as a result of the sadistic nature of the guards or it had to do with the environment. In this regard, they recreated a prison environment where the study participants could be subjected. The Tuskegee Syphilis Studies also involved the recreation of the environment by spreading information that all the black men with syphilis in Alabama would receive free blood tests and treatment (Brandt, 1978). Therefore, from a social research point of view, it is undeniable that the studies followed an initial approach that was compatible with the tenets of described by Israel, (2014). However, in regards to the natural environment, the participants were subjected to, several ethical principles were disregarded.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Zimbardo et al., (1973) had planned the experiment to run for two weeks but eventually ended in the sixth day after massive brutality against the participants was widely reported. It is in this regard that Israel, (2014) asserted that researchers could at times get so overexcited that they forget the implications that the procedures could have on the wellbeing of the participants. However, this is despite the fact that research ethics demands that researchers have minimal control of the behavior shown by the participants of the research. In Zimbardo et al., (1973) the persons who assumed the role of the prisoners and guards behaved in the same way the actual government officers would have functioned. The only problem was the resultant physical and emotional aggression that was unbearable to the participants. The assumption of the role of the security guards caused negative treatment on the participants including the denial of fundamental human rights, stripping, and discontinuation from the research. The Tuskegee Syphilis experimentation also had a similar negative implication on the study participants. The study aimed to observe the natural progression of untreated syphilis (Brandt, 1978).
One of the primary similarities between the two studies is the failure to administer informed consent. The two experiments demonstrate the importance of informed consent as a basis of scientific research. According to Israel (2014), participants in a research program should be well-informed of the research procedures including any associated risks. The information is essential because it influences the decision of whether or not to participate in the experiment process. In the Tuskegee Study, the researchers failed to inform the participants that they would not be given the treatment. The researchers intended to keep these individuals untreated for the longest time possible despite the existence of a syphilis remedy by that particular time. The lack of informed consent in Zimbardo et al., (1973) was also a significant cause of concern as the experiment came to a rapid end. As the head of the research, Zimbardo neither assessed the risks nor informed the participants of any potential deception and concealments that were evident as the research study progressed.
The principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence are two fundamental aspects that must guide research at all time. Beneficence is an ethical principle that outlines the importance of ensuring that all research practices should benefit the patient. On the other hand, nonmaleficence focuses on promoting processes and practices that prevent harm in the study participants. Israel (2014) delves into the two ethical issues by asserting that social scientists must ensure that the research they perform maximize benefit and at the same time minimize the harm. However, the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study significantly faulted in these two critical ethical considerations. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, the participants that assumed the role of the prisoners were not protected from distress, humiliation, physical, and psychological harm. For instance, one of the prisoner participants was taken out of the study only after 36 hours due to excessive screaming, anger, and crying. Zimbardo et al., (1973) even went ahead to argue that it was difficult to predict if the outcome of the study would have turned that way.
Therefore, it was beyond any reasonable doubt that little was done in the study to prevent the likelihood of harm. Despite the presence of a drug for syphilis, none of the participants was given any medicine to cure their condition thereby increasing harm and limiting the benefits of the experiment. Even as penicillin emerged as an effective drug for the disease, little was done to treat the participants. Another contentious issue in these two experiments regarded deception. Israel (2014) defines deception as wrongly informing or deceiving someone on the true nature of a research situation. Some researchers have argued that deception is not only dishonest but also makes an individual feel less informed. However, others have intimated that deception is necessary as a way of preventing the participants from behaving in an unnatural way. Brandt, (1978) asserted that the Tuskegee experiment was marked by widespread deception including the failure to provide them with the treatment that had earlier been promised. The designers of the experiment went ahead and used misleading advertisements which openly stated, “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” In the experiment by Zimbardo et al., (1973), the researchers did not disclose any psychological implications that came with the research.
Strategies Put In Place to Ensure the Standards of the Ethical Research
Israel (2014) remains keen to discuss a host of factors that could be put in place to ensure that research is conducted in the best possible scientific environment. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to perform experiments that could be defended using scientific principles. The Stanford Prison Experiment is thought to have followed certain standards that guide research even today. First, it should be noted that the recruitment process was within the realms of the ethical requirements. The second vital consideration was the debriefing process. The students participating in the study were briefed that they would assume the role of the prisoner or the prison guard. Additionally, they would be observed and filmed throughout the entire process. According to the authorities, they would be expected to participate for the full duration of the experiment. Zimbardo et al., (1973) was lauded for enhancing the credibility of the study by replicating the actual environment as seen in the prison. According to Israel (2014) replicating the natural environment is essential especially in instances where researchers seek to gauge the actual behaviors of the participants. It also limits the chances of fabrication and the falsification of outcomes.
Although it was not clear, there is some evidence pointing out to the fact that Zimbardo et al., (1973) guaranteed the withdrawal from the research. The student removed after 36 hours of crying and frustration could exemplify this as one of the strategies aimed at protecting the ethical integrity of the study. Approval is another crucial aspect of asserting ethical guidelines. Israel (2014) notes that most of the research studies today are approved by ethical committees which assesses whether they meet or fail to meet particular ethical criteria. The experiment by Zimbardo et al., (1973) received approval from the American Psychological Association (APA). It is for this reason that Zimbardo is usually exempted from the adversities that resulted from this research. Many scholars and critics have claimed that the problems experienced were as a result of the unforeseen circumstances. However, compared to many unethical studies, adequate ethical standards were put in place. Although the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment was largely controversial, it took several steps in ensuring that the research went in accordance with the required ethical standards.
In relation to the argument of Israel (2014) regarding the research environment and context, the researchers were able to significantly succeed by recruiting the most appropriate study group. The recruits in the experiment involved 600 African American men from Macon country in Alabama. Out of this number, 399 individuals had untreated syphilis (Brandt, 1978). Other than the recruitment and setting up an appropriate environment, the research was largely unethical. Issues such as informed consent, coercion, the opportunity for withdrawal, and deception contributed to the unprecedented lack of consideration of ethics.
Were Those Strategies Successful?
The failure of both research studies shows that the strategies for ethical considerations were not effective. Although the context and environment for social and scientific research have been established based on the recruitment and participants, the problems in methodology and procedure resulted in failure. Zimbardo et al., (1973) ended within the first six days because the authorities were unable to match the research environment to the welfare needs of the participants. Although it was approved by the APA, it failed to anticipate possible threats to ethics such as the harm that occurred to the student participants who played the role of the prisoners. Although the process of debriefing was done, it was inadequate to the extent that it failed to inform the participants of any scenario that would involve cases of psychological harm on the patients. Thirdly, although the study was approved by the APA, it ended up failing because it did not achieve the ethical principles of informed consent, beneficence, and nonmaleficence which ultimately led to its termination.
Although the Tuskegee Syphilis study managed to recruit and set the context of the research as described by Israel (2014), it failed to capitalize on other significant ethical aspects leading to its failure. However, it could be argued that by the time the research began in 1932, little emphasis was placed on the ethical research methodologies. The US did not have any significant regulatory bodies, and thus ethical standards were yet to be defined as seen today. It, therefore, explains why the research paid little consideration on the welfare of the persons but instead focused on establishing the long-term disease progress of syphilis at the expense of the health and the well-being of this group.
Alternate Strategies
In consideration of ethical research, the two studies followed different paths. For the Stanford Prison Experiment, the research began with strict adherence to ethical considerations before certain unforeseeable eventualities set in that disrupted its entire course. On the other hand, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment was flawed from the get-go. It showed little determination and will to adhere to a research model that would guarantee human dignity. It is therefore vital to consider alternative measures that could have otherwise made the research ethical. According to Zimbardo et al., (1973), the guards resorted to the use of inappropriate measures due to the lack of guidelines that could control and regulate their actions. Conducting the research in an actual prison could have prevented the brutality and further increased order due to the availability of control and regulatory measures. Also, it would have been vital to modify the participants in the research by recruiting new inmates who did not have any prior incarceration records. Through such means, the study would have continued to its completion. The argument is premised on the fact that real inmates would have shown more tolerance when being denied the basic rights unlike the students who were prone to adverse circumstances.
Since the research Tuskegee Syphilis Study had numerous ethical issues, it would have significantly benefited from various alternative measures. However, it remains critical to note that the choice for the experiment was appropriate because the study demanded to understand the long-term effects of syphilis. First, treatment should have remained one of the incentives in participating in the study. With the availability of penicillin, the study period should have been shortened to ensure that the vulnerable populations receive the much-needed cure for their conditions. Although curing would eventually eliminate the participants from the study, shortening the research period would have enabled the researchers to draw inferences on their study questions. The second consideration should have been placed on using a more diverse group of participants. Although syphilis was predominantly among the blacks living in Alabama, it did not mean that the whites or other races were entirely free from the disease. Incorporation of a diverse group of participants could have reduced racial bias and prejudice and replacing it with sobriety and most importantly, scientific principles. Brandt, (1978) asserted that racism, especially in the 20 th century, was a significant problem and this could have informed the direction the research took especially with the lack of consideration to the dignity of the human participants.
The Case Study with the Better Implementation of Research Ethics
Before discussing the research study that had a better implementation of the research ethics, it is critical to discuss some of the deficiencies observed in both instances. In both instances, informed consent was a major problem. Secondly, deception was evident in both case studies. Maleficence or harm was also observable in the two case scenarios. However, the degree and severity of the harm will determine the better of the two studies. Although the research by Zimbardo et al., (1973) caused psychological harm, the Tuskegee study was responsible for mortality and morbidity by virtue of the fact that it denied syphilis patient the appropriate drug. Also, Zimbardo et al., (1973) had a regulatory body in APA that assessed the course of the study. More fundamentally, it involved debrief session and further ensured that all the participants were vetted for their suitability. To an extent, Zimbardo et al., (2014) enabled the students to abort the study once they felt it was unsuitable for their interests. Scholars have cited that the research by Zimbardo et al., (1973) was not a failure per se. It was as a result of unforeseen circumstances and consequences.
Conclusion
In research involving human subjects, ethical consideration has a significant role. It ensures that humans are respected, showed dignity, and restrained from unnecessary harm. It also allows them to foresee the benefits of the research. However, research has shown that many research studies of the past paid little attention to the welfare of human subjects. The two examples described including the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study has massive flaws that affected the outcome. Some of the areas that were neglected included the use of informed consent, truthfulness, and beneficence, and nonmaleficence among others. It is in this regard that author Israel (2014) delves into some of the appropriate factors to consider when conducting research with human subjects. He points out at some factors that have informed the basis of many ethical principles today including the creation of an ideal context and research environment and ensuring that the methodology of the research guarantees the benefit of the participants will experience.
References
Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hastings Center report, 21-29.
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval research reviews, 26(9), 1-17.
Israel, M. (2014). Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance. Sage.
