How Do You Think Two Crucial Research Events—the Creation of the Nuremberg Code and the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee—Influenced the Role of Institutional Review Boards (Irbs) in the Study Design Process?
Disclaimer.The materials on this page are intended for informational and educational purposes. No individuals should use the information, resources or tools contained herein to self-diagnosis or self-treat any health-related condition. The content of the website is not meant to be a substitute for advice provided by a doctor or other qualified health care professional. The company will not be held responsible for any negative consequences arising from the use of information posted on this site.
The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts.
In 1953, the World Medical Association (WMA) was provoked to make drafts that would apply the Nuremberg Code to the practice of human experiment in the medical community. Known as the Declaration of Helsinki, it was an expansion upon the Nuremberg Code and was first adopted in 1964. It has been revised several times (1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 2000 and most recently in 2008) according to the modern ethical theory and current clinical and research practice.
In case of the Milgram experiment we can find the nonobservance of those statements. The Belmont Report, as well as the Nuremberg Code, indicates an importance of the personal freedom within the research. The principle of justice as a fairness distribution is also applies to such experiments as the Milgram, emphasizing an importance of the equal treatment of all participants of the experiment. Informed Consent also indicates the necessity of the equal treatment and the importance of protection of mentally and physically ill people. The consent of the experiment was not informed. Thus, the participants agreed to take part in the learning program, not the obedience.They suppose that this research is absolutely confidential and do not want to provide any information that can be recorded. If the participants of the research get learn that the scientist requires such kind of materials, they can easily refuse him. As the result, the researcher would not get some important elements for his work. The details of the personal life cannot be shared with public within the library and information science without the knowledge of the participants. Therefore, the researchers have to produce an adequate protection of the identity of the participants of the research, for instance, by electing the anonymous responses. Such methods help participants be sure of their physical and legal protection.
Jones, P. E. (1995). Contradictions and Unanswered Questions in the ‘Genie’ Case: A Fresh Look at the Linguistic Evidence. Language & Communications, vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 261-280.
Neuman, W. L. (2012). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (3 rd ed.).Boston: Pearson; Prentice Hall.
National Institutes of Health. (1947). Nuremberg Code. Web.
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. Web.