Ethical and Unethical Human Subject Research

An Ethical Research Study That Used Human Subjects

          Good science is a result of high ethical standards in human subject research.  Two professors from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago, Dr. Adam Waytz and Dr. Nicholas Epley, conducted a case study that involved good science, respectively.  This case study concluded that people who have more connections socially are more apt to dehumanize others.  The research study utilized four different experiments to support their findings, which were administered at the university and in a public laboratory in Chicago.  The researchers asked thirty-eight individuals, both male and female, from the population of the University of Chicago, to participate in the first experiment, thirty-five individuals for the second experiment, using the same participants from experiment one, but not recording any demographics.  In addition to, experiment three, where eighty-four people from the University of Chicago were entered into a prize lottery, in exchange for their participation in the research study, and experiment four, fifty-nine people, both male and female, from the University of Chicago participated in the study, in exchange for $4.00.  Each participant, in each of the experiments, was asked to fill out questionnaires that were explained to them clearly.  

           This study was ethical because respect of persons, beneficence, and justice was applied; all of the autonomous participants gave their voluntary consent to participate, as well as, all of the participants were from the University of Chicago, thus, they were well educated, and could comprehend the information provided by the researchers.  In addition to, the researchers also explained the questionnaires, and disclosed the purpose of the study to these individuals.  Moreover, the individuals recruited were from a large university community, both male and female participants, hence, there was an equitable selection of participants, and with the inclusion of women participants, the justice principle applied.  Further, the privacy of the participants was protected through unrevealed demographic information.  Furthermore, beneficent actions were expressed through minimal risks to the participants, and the incentives provided to the subjects were equitable, and not coercive.  Additionally, the study benefited society because the study was done properly and ethically, to obtain the results. 

An Unethical Research Study That Used Human Subjects

           To acquire knowledge, a researcher may not be ethical in their research practices.  As is the case of 10 United States soldiers, in the early 1960s, who were ordered to board an airplane, in which they thought was a “routine training mission.”  Once in the air, the plane began to have “technical issues,” and the pilot exclaimed over the intercom that they needed to have an emergency landing in the ocean, and told the soldiers to prepare themselves for the crash.  Naturally, a human would feel fear and trepidation in this type of situational setting.  Moreover, the soldiers were unaware that they were part of a research study, by the United States Army Leadership Human Research Unit, in Monterey, California.  The sole purpose of the study was to acquire knowledge of behavioral degradation under psychological stress, or stress of immediate, inescapable death.

            Now that the situational setting, causing fear, was implemented, the air flight attendant gave each soldier insurance forms to fill out, saying it was necessary, in case of death, that the Army wanted to make sure the deaths were compensated.  These obedient soldiers tried to fill out the forms, but realized the forms were hard to understand and confusing.  Little did they know this was deliberate.  All of the sudden, the pilot came over the intercom again, and exclaimed that the emergency was a hoax, and returned them safely back to the airfield.  The result of the findings showed that the control group on the ground had fewer mistakes on their insurance forms, than the soldiers who thought they were in imminent danger.  The study ended because the experiment was jeopardized by one soldier’s genius of giving a warning message, on his airsick bag, to the next human subjects of the study.

            This case is unethical for many reasons.  These reasons include, the Army used deception in their research methods, by telling the soldiers that they were going on a routine mission, instead of informing the soldiers that they were conducting a research study.  Thus, no informed consent was given, and respect of persons was unratified because the soldiers were unaware of the study, and was included in the study involuntarily.  Other deceptions that the Army used was, one, not telling the soldiers that the plane will not crash, and that it was part of the experiment, and two, giving them fictitious forms to fill out, for the Army’s benefit, under extreme stress conditions, thus using coercion.  Neither of these deceptions was made known to the soldiers. 

           Furthermore, the Army had an obligation to maximize benefits and minimize potential harms.  This obligation was blatantly denied to the soldiers.  This study could have caused immense danger to them, such as physical harm, like heart attacks, nerve disorders, or psychological disorders, as in post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  At the conclusion of the study, there were no psychological evaluations given to these soldiers, or medical exams, which would have been beneficial to the soldiers, after such a horrific experience.  Because the Army decided to do a secret research study, the benefits or potential harms was not disclosed to the soldiers, therefore beneficent actions and respect of persons, as well as manifestation of autonomy, was absent.  Additionally, the research study did not benefit society, especially since it was jeopardized, and dismissed.