The Tuskegee Experiment did not involve giving a disease to people.

The subjects of the experiment already had syphilis when they were recruited to be experiment participants.

The experiment was still immoral, but it did not involve giving people a disease. The disease was a pre-existing condition.

that was the report,,,,could be true, could not be true

this story, in guatemala, makes me wonder

Im not saddened by it. They already had it, they would spread it eventually anyways.

I found the OP to be interesting as I recalled all the various unethical human research that has taken place over the last hundred years. One of the most highly stressed elements in my science course work always includes ethical conduct in research.

So I wondered how long universities have so diligently included ethics in their programs. I was surprised by my findings and I feel fortunate to be attending a university that has included such great respect for ethics in research for many years.

I hope the following proves to be interesting and enlightening and that some will be interested enough to view the entire article below.

The following information was retrieved from:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/timeline.cfm
Research Ethics Timeline (1932-Present)
by David B. Resnik, J.D., Ph.D.

Below is a partial list of the unethical research conducted on humans in the last century. As the effects of this research came to light, new ethical determinations resulted.

One hundred years ago there was almost no ethical standard in research for example, in the Tuskegee syphilis study, researches “somehow” felt that studying individuals who ‘already’ have a disease or illness was practical – at least it was better than actually inflicting a disease on a populace. That was part of the reasoning behind the studies – but what kind of mentality would allow humans to suffer when a cure for their suffering is widely available?

For this reason, throughout the last hundred years and going forward from the present, it has become necessary for standards of ethics to evolve and find avenues into our social consciousness.

The article, by Resnik, links several of these experiments to the various developmental stages of research ethics. Included in the full article are areas of animal, DNA, and Psychological research, and intellectual property that requires proper reference to the owner. A nicely done progression of research, their effects, and the resulting changes in ethical guidelines.

The America Competes Act was signed into law during the Bush administration and only in this year, 2010, the America Competes ‘Reauthorization’ Act was approved. One of the major revisions is:

“Section 7009 of the America COMPETES Act was directed solely at the National Science Foundation, and, the Foundation’s implementation therefore applies ONLY to proposals submitted or due to NSF on or after January 4, 2010. NSF is aware, however, that other agencies may have RCR training requirements.”

RCR refers to “Responsible Conduct of Research”. It is now a requirement of any University or research group who apply for research funding (grants) through the National Science Foundation to received certification via training/education in order to be considered for funding. Many other large funding agencies have likewise added such conditions to be considered for research funding and doubtless others will follow.

This is by no means adequate assurance that all research will be conducted ethically, but after one hundred years, it seems to be the best reinforcement toward that goal.



I find it amazing that it took ten years after the dramatic increase of unethical research litigation cases before a standard of ‘Responsible Conduct of Research” was made law – at least where government funding is concerned. Hopefully this action will help solidify ethical research standards in our social consciousness.