Evaluation Research (Research Methods of Sociology) - Assignment Example

English 30 September Evaluation Research (Research Methods of Sociology Provide content summaries for both studies. What were they? What did the researchers hope to find out? What ultimately happened as a result of the studies? The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was carried out in order to determine the probable effects of syphilis on human beings especially in the later and more complex stages of the disease. Moreover, researchers wanted to use a syphilis study to answer broader questions such as if black men possessed the same make up as white men in terms of their response to syphilis. The study was conducted using clandestine techniques for over four decades but the results proved inconclusive. In a similar manner, studies were carried out to see if lead contained in human and industrial waste could be tied down into the soil such that its ingestion would cause no damage. The studies were conducted in impoverished African American neighborhoods and included lead based testing on children (Snyder). The results of the studies failed to substantiate any real means to tie down lead so that it may be less harmful to the human body and mind. 2. Provide at least five distinct and specific similarities between the two studies and discuss them thoroughly. Were there any significant differences? Both studies were carried out in impoverished African American neighborhoods where people were more willing to cooperate with authorities for some small incentive. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study project used men as guinea pigs for observations on syphilis while the sludge based study used children as guinea pigs for observing lead ingestion. The subjects involved in both studies were not asked for informed consent prior to experimentation. All activities carried out in both studies emanated from a lack of knowledge on the part of the participants. The subjects in both studies were suffering due to their medical condition whether from syphilis or from lead ingestion but were offered no treatment in either case. Both studies involved governmental good will that people took for granted. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the sludge based study demonstrate that in both situations people were looking to trust the government without further investigation. The largest difference between the studies is the time frame that they were conducted in. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was begun in the thirties and continued into the seventies while the lead ingestion study is more recent. 3. Were the studies ethical… why or why not? What responsibility, if any, do you think the United States should have for the test subjects or family members of the test subjects for both studies? The studies were not ethical since human beings were being experimented upon without their proper permission. Moreover, human beings were being exposed to willful harm by a government agency. The government of a nation is construed by its people with a charter to protect the lives and safety of its people. The studies carried out in both cases failed to preserve the lives and safety of the involved populations. The United States government owes indemnity based responsibilities to the involved test subjects and their families (Reverby). Not only should these people be offered compensation but they should also be provided with free medical care to mitigate the consequences of experimentation. In addition, the government ought to try the involved officials under codes such as those used for the Nuremberg trials. The acts committed against innocent people in peace time in the guise of medical treatment and help are far worse than actions taken against innocent people in times of war. 4. From Allan Brandt’s article, discuss, if any, clear and specific examples of bias on the part of the researchers. From the article, what specific examples are there of racism? Researchers saw the African American as an abomination on nature’s part. The views held by researchers at the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century show that researchers saw the African American as being of an inferior intellectual level. Moreover, researchers pointed to the facial features and gentiles of African Americans to demonstrate that they were over developed for this point in evolution. The dominant view was that nature was going to consume the African Americans in its process of evolution. Moreover, other researchers felt that African Americans were healthier in slavery than in freedom. Other researchers felt that the African American was unable to take care of his own health for himself. 5. What are your thoughts on the film, The Deadly Deception? What was the other name given to syphilis? When the government doctors did medical examinations on the subjects in the study, what specific procedure was performed and was touted as a free treatment for the disease? What was the Nuremburg Code for the Protection of Human Subjects first and central principle? What regrets did John Cutler have about the study? The Deadly Deception showcases the darker side of science and experimentation carried out in order to fulfill perverted scientific desires. The population of Macon County was manipulated into believing that syphilis was “bad blood” and that it could be cured. The conception behind bad blood was that African Americans were more vulnerable to a host of diseases including syphilis based on their blood composition. Treatment would allow the government to cure the African American’s bad blood. In order to medically examine the test subjects, the government touted vertebrate injections as free and specialized treatment for bad blood. However, the medical procedure performed on the test subjects was dangerous enough to endanger their lives. The Nuremberg Code for the Protection of Human Subjects key principle was to seek informed consent before performing any form of experimentation on human beings. However, the situation in Macon County and Baltimore shows a failure to seek informed consent at any level at all. John Cutler regrets not being able to conduct an ideal study since control group patients moved into the infected groups over the period of time. However, the good doctor fails to account for the hypnotic oath under which physicians are sworn to take care of patients under any conditions. 6. Do you think that the “Sludge Testing” was racially motivated? Why do you think that an upper middle class neighborhood was not targeted for the study? Can you find any current discussion on the “Sludge” study or any evidence of follow-up regarding this particular research endeavor? Sludge testing was not as racially motivated as it was socio-economically motivated. The amount of bias against African Americans has decreased in large part after the Civil Rights movement so it is hardly justifiable to say that sludge testing would be an act of racial discrimination. The real contention behind conducting the sludge testing study in poorer neighborhoods is the amount of protective cover that it provides to government operatives (Heilprin and Vineys). If the community where testing is taking place fears unethical conduct, they might choose to react leading to strict backlash for the involved government officials. Since poorer neighborhoods figure less on the political radar, there is a lower fear of backlash from the residents even if unethical conduct is discovered. The more affluent neighborhoods are differentiated in that they assume an untouchable status for government officials. In case that such a study was carried out in an affluent neighborhood, the chances for backlash would have been much greater. There seems to be little to no follow up on governmental scales to deal with the Baltimore Sludge Pilot Project (Snyder, Baltimore Sludge Pilot Project puts children at additional risk). Whatever little follow up has occurred has taken place on a personal scale that was initiated by scientist, academics and individuals. The issue is widely publicized but there has been no medical follow up since the names of the affected people are withheld by researchers. 7. Provide and discuss another example of a policy/study conducted by the United States that has similar ethical infractions or ambiguity. One of the most controversial subjects of scientific testing and experimentation in the United States was the radioactive testing policy carried out by the government after the Second World War. Thousands of experiments were performed throughout the United States on people who were either too powerless to react or were uninformed of what was taking place. Radiation testing human experimentation has been carried out in individuals as well as in large tracts of the population. For example, the effects of radioactive iodine have been studied time and again on women particularly pregnant women as well on new born babies and infants (Eckart). Most of these studies were conducted on the test subjects without any prior knowledge of the test subjects. In a few cases, the test subjects were informed but were not provided with complete details as to the consequences. In some other studies, radioactive sources were allowed to affect large areas and large amounts of population such as in the infamous “Green Run” where iodine based radiation was allowed to leak into the atmosphere affecting some half a million hectares of land in Hanford, Washington (Goliszek). Works Cited Eckart, Wolfgang Uwe. Man, medicine, and the state: the human body as an object of government sponsored medical research in the 20th century. Franz Steiner Verlag, 2006. Goliszek, Andrew. In The Name of Science. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2003. Heilprin, John and Kevin S. Vineys. Sludge tested as lead-poisoning fix. 2008. 30 September 2012 . Reverby, Susan M. Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and its Legacy. University of North Carolina Press, 2009. Snyder, Caroline. “Baltimore Sludge Pilot Project puts children at additional risk.” 2008. Source Watch. 30 September 2012 . —. “The Dirty Work of Promoting "Recycling" of America’s Sewage Sludge.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11 (2005): 415–427. Read More