The sludge tested as lead-poisoning fix research study and Tuskegee syphilis study - Assignment Example

Module Evaluation Research The sludge tested as lead-poisoning fix research study was carried out by Baltimore scientists whowanted to find out whether fertilizer made from human and industrial wastes would be effective in protecting children from lead poisoning in black neighborhoods. They chose nine low-income earning families who were given free food coupons and new lawns. They were to spread the sludge into their yards and plant new grass. For some time, the federal government had held that sludge could be treated to come up with something harmless, even if swallowed. They wanted to testify this tenet would be applicable in the real life situation. The study concluded that phosphate and iron that were present in the soil had the ability to trap harmful metals, lead included, causing the combination to pass safely through a child’s body if ingested (Heilprin and Vineys). The infamous Tuskegee syphilis study was set up in Alabama to study the progress of untreated syphilis amongst the participants. They were mainly concentrating on the poor black men who were told that they were being offered free government healthcare. The study, which began in 1932, enrolled more than 600 impoverished African-Americans with 400 out of these having previous contractions of the disease and the other 200 without the disease. By the end of the study, more controversy rather than praise dogged this study. At the end of it all, only 74 of the test subjects had survived. 40 of the wives of those amongst the 400 infected participants had contracted the disease with 19 children being born with congenital syphilis (Reverby 7-8). 2. The two studies have various similarities. First, they were conducted amongst the poor in the society. The sludge experiment targeted families from poor neighborhoods and amongst the low-income earners. This meant that they could be as unethical as they wanted and get away with it. They could use freebies to entice them and this would achieve their goal without ever having to disclose their main intention. The poor men in the Tuskegee experiment were drawn from the poor in the society with each individual given a different version of what they were expecting from the study (Reverby 9). The second similarity is the fact that they were all given some form of enticement which was to act as a bait to prevent them from engaging in anything else. The sludge experiments gave them new lawns and free food coupons that were to encourage them to participate (Heilprin and Vineys). For the Tuskegee experiment, the poor African-Americans were told that they were receiving free federal care for the cure of “bad blood”; a code name used by the locals to describe several illnesses such as syphilis, anemia and other such diseases. The third similarity was the fact that the side effects of each experiment were kept in secrecy from the participants (Reverby 9). Instead of being told the truth, they were given hideous excuses that were never justified or even elaborated. Instead of being told that the sludge could have adverse effects on their children if ingested, they told them that their lawns would be green and that their children would have a place to play (Heilprin and Vineys). The Tuskegee participants were told that they were receiving free medication for their disease despite being denied a chance to seek alternative medicine when penicillin was validated as a possible cure for the disease (Reverby 12). The fourth similarity is the fact that racial discrimination is very much pronounced in both studies. They both chose black poor neighborhoods amongst whom free services could be used to entice them to participate rather than get any form of consent from them willingly they were using the fact that these were poor families to try out the effects of each of their studies. The other similarity is the fact that unethical means of attaining the enrollment of participants were used (Reverby 93). They were denied a chance to participate in the signing of legal documents that would detail the essence of the experiment and the caution that was taken to prevent harm from befalling them. Instead, they were kept in the dark until the authorities came to their rescue. Such policies as the Nuremburg Code for the Protection of Human Subjects were informed by this ignorance that was allegedly commitment with full consent of the oversight authorities and the concerned researches. 3. The studies were not ethically conducted. The hypotheses of each were quite feasible. However, the way they conducted these studies left a lot to be desired. As each individual study sought to use the readily available participants from the poor background, all caution was thrown to the wind. The harmful aftermath of the lead presence in the soil was enough to cause harm to the children but none of this was ever disclosed to the participants in fact, they used a lie as a means of encouraging the participants to get involved by stating that it was some form of organic fertilizer that was sold in Maryland (Heilprin and Vineys). Tuskegee researchers on the other hand told its participants that it was some form of free government medical care for all those who had the bad blood and this got all those infected excited. Had the consequences of the intended actions been explained as is required, the participants would have willingly participated or refuted, depending on how they felt about the outcomes. The government should seek to compensate the victims and also allow for a free medical checkup for those involved in both studies. This way, they would have helped solve the impending ethical issue (Reverby 25-6). Policies regarding the same had to be made to ensure that future researches did not involve such trickery. 4. Biases can be noted from Brandt’s article. First, there were only African-Americans used exclusively for the study of the effects of the disease. This has strong racial undertones. Further, when penicillin was discovered and validated as a cure for the disease, the participants were discouraged from taking part in the immunization process, increasing their chances of death and further health deterioration (Brandt 60). Racism was also considered as a form of division between the white civilized society and the other primitive peoples. There were some racial biases that affected and most likely skewed the expected results after the experiment came to an end. This is because the men were coaxed into participating, not for the study, but for alleged treatment. They were also ready to leave them for dead with one of the lead researchers citing the fact that “… [They] have no further interests in these patients until they die” (Brandt 66). That kind of arrogance should be tamed by use of tough penalties once discovered with legislation protecting everyone, regardless of race or creed. 5. The movie is quite informative. It deals with the Tuskegee experiment that led to the death of many innocent black men who thought they were gaining free treatment. The movie tries to get to the bottom of the study with experts from different sectors interviewed. They all agree that it was unethical. They termed syphilis as bad blood since it was a disease they thought to be in the blood. The doctors were to perform a spinal tap that would be used to test for any evidence of neuro-syphilis. This would be done through spinal punctures where they would be influenced to believe that it was a healthy way of treating the disease. The first principle of the Nuremburg Code for the Protection of Human Subjects is that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely critical and mandatory. The second principle mandates that any study conducted must yield results that are good for the society and not randomly and unnecessary in nature. John Cutler’s regret was that there was no possible way of conducting such a long-term study on human beings without adverse effects as noted in the Tuskegee experiment. In general the movie sought to clarify the importance of having principles that govern any research and that the lack of procedure, tenets and the observed racism led to the death of innocent people from a disease that could be prevented before it got out of hand. 6. The sludge testing study was racially motivated the fact that the studies were carried out in areas that were earmarked for demolition was proof enough that they did not want the participants to be found or for them to record any statements about the study (Heilprin and Vineys). They hoped to get away with it after they had eventually gotten what they wanted. They offered free gifts meant to satisfy the immediate wants of the participants while neglecting the future implications. They did not pursue the middle-class because they knew that they would be questioned about their integrity and that would disadvantage them greatly (Heilprin). Currently, the study on the use of sludge as fertilizer has been found to be albeit dangerous with the toxins therein consisting of antibiotic resistance genes if passed on to the human food chain. This means that policies on how research should be conducted were totally ignored and there was no further evidence that the targeting of black poor neighborhoods would be of great necessity for their general well-being. 7. John Cutler led another study in Guatemala with similar tactics as those of Tuskegee. Here, the researchers chose Guatemala because they could not be allowed to conduct the same in the U.S. They chose soldiers, prisoners and mental patients who would deliberately pass on syphilis through intercourse or injections. They wanted to confirm whether penicillin would be of considerable help if used in these patients. They received the approval of the authorities but not of the individuals, thus, denying them the chance to voluntarily consent. Works Cited Brandt, A. M. Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. 60-71. Print. Heilprin, J. & Vineys, K. S. Sludge tested as lead-poisoning fix. Associated Press. 2008-04- 13. Web. 2012-10-01. Heilprin, J. Probes wanted on sludge research in poor neighborhoods. Seattletimes.com. 2008-04-17 web. 2012-10-01. Reverby, Susan M. Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and its Legacy. University of North Carolina Press. 2009. Print. Read More