Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

From videos (time permitting)

A. Video - Deadly Deception

1. Describe the Public Health Service research rogram (1930's-1970's) to


study the outcomes of untreated syphilis on a sample of 400 black males in
Tuskegee, Alabama

2. Why was the study performed (the rationale)?

3. What justified the shift from a free treatment program to purely data
collection?

4. Why was there no protest when patients were turned into human subjects
in 1932?

5. In 1938 the National V.D. Control Act was passed, providing nationwide
free screening and treatment; in 1943 penicillin was discovered. What was
the rationale used to justify systematically excluding the sample population
in Macon County? E. The Tuskegee Study officially ended in 1972 and the
Public Health Service developed official guidelines to protect Human
Subjects. What was the response of the director of the Tuskegee Study?

6. The Nuremburg Code for Protection of Human Subjects was written in


1947. What events produced this code?

7. What were the major provisions of the Nuremburg Code?

8. Why did the Tuskegee Study continue, despite the code?

9. The APA Ethical Guidelines were developed in the early 1970's and are
described in Chapter 4 of the textbook. If these guidelines on treatment of
human subjects had been in place during the Tuskegee Study, what
principles were violated? State each major principle and how it was violated.
B. Video - From Do Scientists Cheat

1. Evaluate the methods scientists rely on to catch and deter misconduct.

2. What motivates researchers to be less than totally honest?

3. What are the responsibilities of referees in the "peer review" process?

4. Why is it difficult for a referee to detect fraud? Is replication of results a


safeguard against fraud?

5. What works against scientists who want to perform direct replications?

6. Does journal proliferation impact misconduct? How does funded research


and competitiveness lead to “confirmation bias"?

7. What is the best way to diminish the potential for ethical misconduct by
scientists?

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi