In this study, black subjects were selected, but full details relating to the experiment was not disclosed to them. If I was the lead researcher in the study and fully aware of the Belmont report and the Nuremberg code, I would first hold a seminar where a group of interested individuals would be furnished with the full details of the study (Adams & Miles, 2013). From the crowd, only those who will be interested in pursuing the study further would be enlisted. These results are according to the Belmont’s report, Part C, Section One, on obtaining consent from subjects who are well informed.
The report directs that for the sake of respecting the subjects, they should be furnished with all relevant information to allow them so that they can decide what is to happen or not happen to them. This opportunity should be availed to them after all the necessary requirements for obtaining consent have been met. Therefore, the third element of the consent will be used to obtain consent from the participants. The third element which is voluntariness will involve getting into agreement with the subjects to take part in the study voluntarily (Coughlin, Etheredge, Metayer & Martin Jr 1996). The consent shall be obtained free from any sort of coercion and without any form of unwarranted manipulation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Within the element of voluntarism, it is elaborated that coercion will only take place when an evident risk of injury is deliberately presented by the researcher to the subject with intentions to get the submission. Furthermore, the unwarranted manipulation takes place when the researcher compromises the subject by issuing gifts or presents with the purpose of obtaining approval for the use of an unwarranted, inappropriate, or excessive methodology (Coughlin et al., 1996). This approval is similar to the manner in which the lead researcher in the Tuskegee syphilis study obtained consent from the black male by compromising them with promises of free meals, insurance for burial and medical examination.
Even after the blacks had been compromised into partaking into the study meant for six months but later spun forty years with the subjects not having the option to withdraw from the study, they received no treatment. As the lead researcher, I will ensure that all the participants get the cure without compromise or favor (Coughlin et al., 1996). For the success of the study, I will keep off inducements and further cut down the project duration to six months instead of the continual time frame. After the end of the six months, new subjects will be requested to sign for a new recruitment exercise or new agreements entered with new subjects.
The Nuremberg code also emphasizes on the consenting freely to partake in an experiment involving human subjects and identifies it as being extremely beneficial. Free consent implies that the subjects should possess legal abilities to give and agree and to be in a position to practice in the absence of duress, force, deceit, over-reaching, and fraud (Coughlin et al., 1996). Moreover, like the Belmont report, the Nuremberg code is strict on the use of deceitful means or use of any concealed method of restriction or intimidation on the subject. The subject needs to have ample facts and understanding of the elements.
Milgram’s Experiment
In Milgram’s experiment, it is obvious that the recruitment process was flawed and was based on the male subjects who responded to the newspaper advert. As a lead researcher, I would talk to the leaders of a large organization, company, Institute, or group for the possibility of getting a study sample from their workers (Baumrind, 1964). At least in such a population size, there would be a mixed representation of both genders. Furthermore, just like in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment the recruitment of the subject will be based on the voluntary agreement of the owner and the researcher.
Instead of using the human being as the learner, I would change the situation of the question to use an animal. At least with the use of animals as subjects will be in-line with the Nuremberg code. The code specifies that a study crafted so as the outcome of the animal investigation and skill of the normal history of the condition or another item under review will bring forth outcome that will justify the conducting of the study (Baumrind, 1964). At least with animals, less provocation of the human experiments’ emotions would be experienced, and further relate to Section 4 of the report. The section discloses studies should be performed in a way that will not cause any injury to self or others to be it mentally or physically. The subjects would be inflicting the shock to the animals rather than a human being.
The study would be conducted by qualified personnel, unlike Milgram who used actors. At least with qualified personnel, as the lead researcher I expect positive criticism for the academic department. The code clarifies that it is only persons that are scientifically qualified that should be allowed to perform the studies (Baumrind, 1964). The lead researchers are called upon to ensure that the finest capacity in terms of skills are met and caution should be taken to ensure that only professionals in the area of study are employed at each of the stages. By employing unqualified actors who are used to reciting scripts could have affected the outcome of the much-hyped results. Thus, engaging scholars would ensure personnel capable of making decisive decisions are in control of the study.
Even with the subjects being overwhelmed by the pleas for mercy, the unqualified help sticks to the script and forces them to obey their commands. Therefore, I would ensure that the decisions made by the team are a decision that reflects the study’s goals and objectives. Milgram claims to have provided the entrants with an opportunity to withdraw from the experiment, but it is one that was manipulated and the character with a grey dust coat sticking to the part he was paid to act. Therefore, I will create chances for the subjects to withdraw, for realization of accurate results (Baumrind, 1964). Contrary to Milgram’s experiment, the subject’s might have stuck to the script with the fear of losing the monetary allowances allocated to them in case they withdrew before completion. Hence, all subjects would be informed in advance that early withdrawal from the experiment would not affect in any way their stipends or allowances.
A team that is qualified passes on information from one to the other and thereby becomes competent in obtaining the required outcome. Moreover, Milgram’s experiment featured mostly men thus can be said to be corrupt and lacks a feminist approach; thus the results would not be entirely representative (Baumrind, 1964). Therefore, as a lead researcher, I will introduce a few women into the study to bring in a balanced outcome.
Women’s voice in the experiment would show a significant representation of the classical. Since women have a fainter heart to collect and analyze data would help to keep raw organization supplied with relevant and important information (Adams & Miles, 2013). Hence, there is a slight chance that women might have changed the results obtained by their mere presence in the experiment. It is extremely critical professional women for having foresight the elite few in running their teams.
References
Adams, D. P., & Miles, T. P. (2013). The application of Belmont Report principles to policy development. Journal of Gerontological Nursing , 39 (12), 16-21.
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's" Behavioral study of obedience.". American Psychologist , 19 (6), 421.
Coughlin, S. S., Etheredge, G. D., Metayer, C., & Martin Jr, S. A. (1996). Remember Tuskegee: public health student knowledge of the ethical significance of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. American journal of preventive medicine , 12 (4), 242-246.
