By: Sasekea Harris
Introduction
This paper will discuss actual examples of research which might be considered controversial in terms of topics and methods. As such, this paper will discuss the controversial researches: “Tuskegee Syphilis Study” (TSS); then “Tearoom Trade” (TT) and thereafter “Obedience to Authority”. Accordingly, for each selected research - the first section will present an overview of the research; the second section will examine how the research is controversial and will provide justifications for doing the research; and the third section will discuss the consequences for engaging such research. The paper then ends with a conclusion of the issues highlighted in discussing such controversial researches.
Tuskegee Syphilis Study (TSS),
TSS is an actual example of a research, which might be considered controversial in terms of topic and methods. The TSS was designed to evaluate the effects of untreated syphilis in a group of approximately 399 black men in Tuskegee, Alabama. The researchers compared the progress of the disease within these men with that of 200 uninfected men. “Its aim was to observe the natural course of the disease and to discover whether or not that course was different in blacks than in whites. Its method was to deprive 399 syphilitic blacks of treatment for their condition over a forty year period” (Kiple 1982, p. 558).
The research subjects were enlisted under the belief that they were being treated for bad blood – syphilis being part of the definition of bad blood. However, “because of the non-therapeutic nature of the experiment, men died, went insane and became blind. Yet the subjects were told only that they had “bad blood” and that the government doctors who examined them periodically were treating their condition” (Kiple 1982, p. 558). Although penicillin later became available as a treatment for the disease, the researchers denied the drug to the men in an effort to further their observations of untreated syphilis in its later stages.
This research can be considered controversial in terms of its topic and methods. The research focused entirely on the study of syphilis in black men, which can be viewed positively and negatively. On the negative side, one could argue that the sample composition for the research was deliberately centered on a minority race – blacks. As such, it could appear as a deliberate attempt to eradicate a group of poor and illiterate black men. Consequently, it could be used as a platform to promote racism by those preoccupied with seeing racism as underlying any activity involving minorities. In fact, Fourtner, Fourtner and Herreid (2008, p.1) in their review of the research corroborates this argument. They contend that this research can be seen as “the genocide of the black race” because medical treatment was being withheld from an ethnic minority.
Although this interpretation might be plausible, in the sense that the researchers deliberately designed the research with a focus on a minority race and with the intent to study the progress of the disease, regardless of the possibility of subjects becoming sick and die because of not receiving treatment; this view does not present a complete and an objective picture of the research. As such, one must also examine the possibility that this deliberate framing of the research to have a focus on blacks could be seen as an attempt to widen the literature on syphilis health care for blacks and by extension improve the health conditions of black people, which was at the time, not very great. In fact, Hagen (2005, p.33) reveals that at the time, syphilis was epidemic and that no safe or effective treatment for it existed, and its natural course in Europeans had already been well described, making it justifiable and easy to compare the symptoms and progression of the disease between the two racial types.
The work of King (1992, p.35) confirms Hagen’s arguments that studies were done on whites but not on blacks. According to King (1992, p.35) before the experiment began, a Norwegian investigator had already undertaken a study of untreated syphilis in whites between 1890 and 1910. From this perspective, the study could be justified; justified in the sense that it would contribute to the literature on syphilis health care for blacks. As such, doctors understanding of syphilis treatment in blacks could be improved and by extension the medical treatment and health care of the blacks. From this perspective, this research could be seen as an attempt to save and lengthen the lives of a minority race. Caplan (1992, p. 30) supports this notion. He asserts “One of the bitter if generally unacknowledged ironies of the Tuskegee study is that, while it now occupies a special place of shame in the annals of human experimentation, its findings are still widely cited by the contemporary bio-medical community”. This assertion was not made without evidence. He reveals that:
The computerization on large databases of the majority of the world's professional biomedical journals allows searches to be conducted to see which, if any, recent journal articles cite any of the thirteen papers presenting the findings of the Tuskegee study. An initial database search for the period January 1985 to February 1991 produced twenty such citations from a wide spectrum of journals, including American, British, and German publications. The twenty citations make reference to seven of the original thirteen papers. A visit to any large medical library will also quickly reveal the importance assigned to the findings of the Tuskegee study in recent years. An informal random selection of twenty medical textbooks on sexually transmitted diseases, infectious disease, human sexuality, and public health published after 1984 turned up four books that made explicit reference to the study and cited at least one of the same thirteen articles. Three text-books were published in the United States, one in England. The range of journals in which contemporary articles on syphilis, venereal disease, and dementia directly cite the papers reporting the findings of the Tuskegee study is quite large.
(Caplan 1992, p.30-31)
The TSS is also controversial because of the methods employed, namely: covert research design / deception, harm, uninformed consent and no debriefing, which are all directly in conflict with the principles of research ethics. According to the principles of research ethics as outlined by Babbie (2004, p.) research participants should be debriefed, informed consent should be obtained by the researcher, there should be no deception and participants should not be harmed. However, in this research, the participants were not fully informed. As such, they consented to participate in a research which was false. In this sense, the right of the participant to freely choose what he / she wishes to be a part of was taken away. Additionally, the participants were not truthfully debriefed. As such, they were not made aware of all the advantages and disadvantages of becoming a participant in the research, which may have informed their choice to participate.
Also, they were deceived in multiple ways, namely: (a) They were deceived about the study’s design, that is – it was designed to evaluate the effects of untreated syphilis. (b) The research participants were deceived into believing that they were receiving treatment for bad blood, syphilis being part of the definition of bad blood. (c) When penicillin became available during the course of the research, the researchers denied the drug to the men in an effort to further their observations of untreated syphilis in its later stages. In this sense, the researchers permitted harm to the participants: they watched as the participants became insane, blind and dead, and did nothing to help. These assertions are confirmed by the work of Fairchild and Bayer (1999, p.919-921). They state:
The study involved deceptions regarding the very existence and nature of the inquiry into which individuals were lured. As such, it deprived those seeking care of the right to choose whether or not to serve as research subjects. Second, it entailed an exploitation of social vulnerability to recruit and retain research subjects. Third, Tuskegee researchers made a willful effort to deprive subjects of access to appropriate and available medical care as a way of furthering the study's goals”.
Fairchild and Bayer (1999, p.919-921)
The comments made by participants in the actual research support these arguments. For example, Shaw, who was one of five survivors present for President Clinton's apology, stated that: "We were treated unfairly. To some extent like guinea pigs. We were not pigs. We were hard-working men, not boys, and citizens of the United States" (Allen 1997, p.15).
It is evident that the participants were extensively deceived and severely harmed, yet the research was launched and continued for years. Legislators and federal officials expressed outrage over the immorality of this study, in which poor, illiterate men had been deceived and given placebo treatment rather than standard therapy so that more could be learned about syphilis. Americans found it hard to believe that the Public Health Service had intentionally and systematically duped men with a disease as serious as syphilis, which is disabling, and life threatening (Caplan 1992, p.29).
The perspective from which their harm and deceit are viewed makes the research even more controversial. For example, from a humanitarian perspective, one could argue that the research and its methods are unjustified, as it is unfair to harm 399 men in order to provide medical benefits to the rest of society. These 399 men it can be argued, were humans and had rights. In fact, Fairchild and Bayer (1999, p.920) argue that “It is not ethically acceptable to learn from the misery of the vulnerable without protecting them from known risks of serious harm".
However, from a utilitarian perspective, one could nevertheless argue that the TSS is justified because of the greater good it provided – an enhancement of our knowledge of syphilis. In fact, according to Caplan (1992, p.31) even if it were wrong to cite data acquired by immoral means, there is simply no way to purge the knowledge gained in the Tuskegee study from biomedicine. He confirms that much of what is known about the natural history of syphilis is based upon the study, and that knowledge has become so deeply embedded that it could not be removed. Similarly, Soble (1978, p.42) contends that “when balancing the needs of society and a desire of individual subjects not to be deceived, experiments that do contribute substantially to our knowledge are justified”.
Regardless of the knowledge of the extensive deceit and harm inherent in the TSS, the research continues to be justified by some, and as such, remains controversial. The consequences of doing such a research are therefore both rewarding and damaging. One of the major consequences of doing the TSS is that it has encouraged fear. Knowledge of the deception and the harm inflicted on the participants have encouraged fear and suspicion on the part of some prospective research participants and by extension a reluctance to participate in future research. For example:
One day in the early 1990s Kimberly Sessions overheard two of her patient education clients talking just out of sight beyond the open door to the hall of her HIV/AIDS outpatient clinic: If your doctor asks you are you taking your AZT, tell him you are, but throw it away instead. It’s poison and it doesn’t work in black people anyway. It’s just like Tuskegee all over again. They are just using it to experiment on black people.
(Hagen 2005, p.31)
She adds:
Many African Americans are readily able to connect the atrocity of Tuskegee with the catastrophe of AIDS. This translates into a fear that participating in research will be seen as aiding and abetting those who seek to do them harm. As one person at a community recruitment talk said, “We put the fox in charge of the hen house once and look what happened. Why would I want to help them do that again?
(Hagen 2005, p.40)
This highlights how the outcomes of TSS can to an extent deter the advancement of research and the development of treatment for illnesses such as AIDS. Interestingly, “the crucial difference was that this time around it was the African American patients who were discouraging treatment and the public health physicians who were excluded from the discussion” (Hagen 2005, p.32). This will no doubt have implications for physicians and researchers. As such, they will need to educate that part of the public who have lost trust in researchers, with a view to re-earning their trust and re-defining the need to be involved in human experiments.
On the contrary, evidence also indicates that knowledge of the deception and harm inflicted on the participants of TSS has not discouraged some participants from participating in research involving humans as experiments. In a study conducted by Katz, Kegeles, Kressin, Green, James, Wang, Russell and Claudio (2008, p.1137) where they compared the influence of awareness of the TSS and the presidential apology for that study on the willingness of Blacks, non-Hispanic Whites, and Hispanics to participate in biomédical research, they found that compared with Whites, Blacks were nearly four times as likely to have heard of the TSS and two to three times more likely to have been willing to participate in biomédical studies despite having heard about the TSS.
This indicates that all has not been lost because of knowledge of the negatives of TSS. However, it also indicates that researchers will need to be careful in future research, making sure that they debrief subjects, obtain their informed consent and diminish harm as much as is possible. TSS provides lessons for future research and researchers. It serves as a guide to researchers’ actions. For example, researchers need to be open and put themselves in the place of the researched when carrying out any future research. In fact, Edgar (1992, p.32) argues that the “obvious immorality of research methods should not blind us to the importance of noting and discussing them. If no place is made for discussions of the morality of studies such as Tuskegee, the research community may become complacent about the importance of its responsibilities toward human subjects”.
Additionally, another consequence of doing the TSS is that it has encouraged an awareness of ethics and as such is an excellent example for teaching research ethics. Additionally, it has partly encouraged the establishment of ethics review board in universities in some parts of the United States, to mitigate against such acts. Also, it has played a role in the passing of the National Research Act of 1974, which mandates Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval of all federally funded proposed research with human subjects. Furthermore, it can be argued that the effects of the TSS have motivated caution and watch to be given to future research. For example, Blinded Seroprevalence Studies, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), studies of HIV infection (Hastings Center 1992, p.29).
TSS is indeed a controversial research because of the topic and the methods employed. It is nevertheless justified to the extent that it has informed our knowledge of syphilis and has contributed to recognition for the need for the establishment of ethical review boards. As such, engaging the research has no doubt produced negative and positive consequences.
Tearoom Trade
TT is also a research, which can be considered controversial in terms of topic and methods. In TT, Laud Humphreys, a researcher, offered to play the role as a “watchqueen” in order to covertly study the tearoom activities of homosexuals. He later became interested in the conventional lives that these men apparently led and consequently obtained, via deceit, their license plate numbers, disguised himself as well as the topic of the research and surveyed these men in their homes. These actions have understandably provoked controversy because of the topic of the research and because of the methods employed.
This research can be considered controversial in terms of its topic. The research focused entirely on the study of homosexual men engaging in felatio, which can be viewed negatively as well as positively; thereby making the research controversial. From a positive perspective, researching homosexual men and acts was done at a time when little was known about the characteristics of these men. Therefore, the study would have been germane to providing information on a closed subject. In fact, Sikes (2005, p.268) points out that: “Coming out stories of lesbians, bisexuals and gays are now commonplace, mainstream and largely unremarkable, but 50 years ago same-sex relationships were still seen in terms of ‘the love that dare not speak its name’”.
Consequently, one must examine the possibility that this deliberate framing of the research to have a focus on homosexuals could be seen as an attempt to enhance our understanding of their lives, and by extension come to the realization that homosexuals are not different. Desroches (1990, p.40) supports this notion somewhat. He argues that this varied but controversial research provided detailed, intimate and comprehensive data on the behavior, lifestyles, and social characteristics of tearoom participants and Wax (1977, p.30) acknowledges that the study aids our understanding of homosexuals. “It demonstrated that those who engage in such homosexual practices were otherwise normal and decent citizens”. Debatably, this could produce the effect of discouraging to an extent, the belief that homosexuals are different and by extension discourage prejudicial attacks grounded in the belief of difference. From this perspective, the study is justified.
Conversely, the research being focused on homosexuals could also be viewed negatively, in the sense that it placed homosexuals at risk for exposure and possible harm. Publishing the findings of the research could make persons aware of the act, the venue where the act occurs and by extension be on the watch for such activities. This could therefore motivate controversial and contentious situations for others like them. Consequently, it could be used as a platform to promote prejudices by those preoccupied with punishing homosexuals. In fact, Sikes (2005, p.268) reveals that “Telling any personal story that involved it was likely to have disastrous social and economic consequences, and could also result in criminal prosecution”. Interestingly, Humphreys confirm this possibility of prejudice in his writing. He later wrote “At this very moment my writing has been interrupted by a long distance call, telling me of a man whose career has been destroyed because he was "caught" in a public restroom....” (Humphreys 1974, p.167).
Additionally, a study focusing solely on homosexuals and the act of felatio is controversial because of the issue of a sense of what is biblically right and wrong. On the one hand, there are those, for example, conservative theologians, who maintain that homosexuality is wrong, and on the other, those – liberal theologians who maintain that it is alright. Therefore, for the former, this study would perhaps be viewed as immoral and unworthy of research. Furthermore, the research focusing on homosexuals in the act of felatio would be viewed as an abomination to God. In fact, according to Lamont (2004, p.1) author of Christian Answers Network, “God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
She argues that according to Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination”. She states that disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority. Additionally, she notes that it is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion. Although this is a plausible view, it does not present a complete and an objective perspective. As such, the perspective of the latter, that is liberal theologians, must be considered as well.
For them, a study such as TT which makes homosexuals the topic - showing that they are normal men, would perhaps be okay. In fact, according to Wernick (2005, p.50-51) most liberal theologians suggest that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship and this he argues is used in some ways, as a forerunner of some of today's gay partnerships. He states that the scripture they present in support of homosexuality is 1 Samuel 18:1,3-4 which reads:
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. . . . Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
And also 2 Samuel 1:26 where David proclaims: "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." Also, Wernick (2005 p.50-51) points out that the book of Ruth 1:16-17 is used as well to justify homosexual issues. It reads:
Do not ask me to abandon or forsake you! For wherever you go I will go, wherever you lodge I will lodge, your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Wherever you die I will die, and there be buried. May the Lord do so and so to me, and more besides, if aught but death separates me from you!
These are common arguments used to justify homosexuality issues and arguably could also be used to justify this homosexual research topic. These controversial perspectives are however open to criticism. Debatably, people use the Bible to confirm what they choose and not necessarily what is. In fact, George Bernard Shaw (1895 as cited in Wernick 2005, p. 47) states “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means”. The Bible should be read within the context in which it was written. As such, the issue of homosexuality and by extension this study, because of its focus on homosexuality, will remain a controversial topic until what the Bible says is interpreted as meant, and not simply used to suit a particular belief.
Like TSS, TT is also controversial because of the methods employed, namely: a covert design, deception and a lack of informed consent. The research design was covert; accordingly, the men were unknowingly participating in a research. They were being observed without knowledge of this, without being debriefed and without being able to offer their informed consent. Their very intimate and personal sexual acts were unknowingly being observed. This covert design is indeed controversial as on one side, this could be seen as wrong and on the other side as justified, depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. From the perspective of the researched, one could argue that a covert research design was an invasion of privacy and is a direct violation of the individual’s right to making a choice as to participation in a research. Warwick (1973, p.34) corroborates this assertion. He argues that “whatever the current state of legal definitions of privacy, Humphreys intruded much too far into the lives of the men he observed and studied”.
However, from the perspective of the researcher, one could argue that there is the possibility that the data obtained would have been compromised had the subjects been informed about the study. Arguably, because of the sensitivity of the topic, it is highly improbable that these homosexuals would have engaged the activity, in particular felatio, and especially in a homophobic era as Sikes (2005, p.268) had earlier pointed out - where “coming out” stories of homosexuality was forbidden. In this sense, a covert research design, and by extension the research could be seen as justifiable. Soble (1978, p.40) supports this position. He argues that “certain bits of knowledge cannot, for logical reasons alone, be obtained without the use of deception…We are faced then with a moral dilemma, since the search for knowledge is at least morally permissible, if not to a certain extent morally obligatory, and since the use of deception is morally unacceptable at least on a prima facie basis”. He adds “many types of experiment seem to require that the subjects not be told the purpose of the study, and in some cases that they be induced to hold false beliefs about the nature of the experiment during the experiment itself” because of the possibility of influencing the results (Soble 1978, p.40).
Furthermore, one could also argue that it is highly improbable that these homosexuals would have engaged the activity, in particular felatio, had they been informed. Debatably, the existence of a role for a watchqueen implies a level of suspicion regarding the wider public and consequently has produced the need to self protect. This claim is confirmed by the work of Warwick (1973, p. 28) who noted that “social deviants inside restrooms and elsewhere develop careful defenses against outsiders, including special gestures and extreme caution with strangers”. Moreover, Humphreys’ (1970, p.15) revealed that:
Fortunately, the very fear and suspicion of tearoom participants produces a mechanism that makes such observation possible: a third man… who serves as a lookout. Such a "watchqueen," as he is labeled in the homosexual argot, coughs when a police car stops nearby or when a stranger approaches.
Therefore, while some deceitful aspects of Humphreys’ research are unjustifiable, there are other deceitful aspects such as the covert design, which can be justified given these arguments which point to context, subject sensitivity and era.
Additionally, the covert research design allowed the tearoom participants to engage in their homosexual acts without discomfort. Discomfort can arise when participants are involved in sensitive researches. Homan (1980, p.46-59) confirms this. He states that “covert research is a pragmatic expedient, ideally nonreactive and giving access to secret transactions: but it is also justifiable in view of the right of objects to be free from disturbance and inhibition. Also, Norris and Walker (2005 in Somekh and Lewin 2005, p.132) contend that “this field research role offers the considerable advantage of avoiding the risk of disturbing the setting and ‘studying an artifact of your presence rather than normal behavior’”. In this instance, these tearoom participants / research subjects, could continue to participate in their homosexual activities to the point where the method allowed for uninhibited collection of in-depth data. From this view, the study could then be argued as justified.
The study is further controversial because of the deliberate and multiple use of deception regardless of the fact that the Articles of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Declaration of Helsinki both state that the subjects must be told the duration, methods, possible risks, and the purpose or aim of the experiment and that informed consent has not been obtained if there has been any element of deceit or fraud (Soble 1978, p.40). The subjects were deceived in multiple ways: namely (a) Humphreys assumed and manipulated the role of watchqueen in order to become an observer (b) When he later became interested in the lives that these men led he obtained their license plate numbers by illegal means (c) His sample was not as random as he made it appeared to these men. He deliberately selected them based on his knowledge of them (judgmental sampling) (d) He deceived the men about the nature of the research. He was not truthfully carrying out a market research but rather a research on tearoom participants (e) He deliberately changed his appearance in order to conceal his identity from these men. These instances of deception are corroborated by Wax (1977, p.30.) Warwick (1973, p32) and Desroches (1990, p.40).
According to Wax (1977, p 30) he did not identify himself to participants as a researcher, but exploited the role of "watchqueen" in order to observe. “He deceived the police about the nature of his study ("market research") in order to gain access to automobile license registers”. He further argues that tracing the identities of the participants via the license plates of their cars and then, some months later, calling upon them in their homes in order to conduct an interview-relatively innocuous in itself about such matters as occupation and socioeconomic status was quite reprehensible. Also, Desroches (1990, p.40) points out that he recorded the license plate number of numerous participants whom he identified and visited in their homes a year later.
Additionally, according to Warwick (1973, p.32) when he introduced the study he told the respondents that they were part of a random cross-section sample chosen to represent the whole metropolitan area, that this was a "social health survey of men in the community," and that they were anonymous. “If so, the first point Warwick (1973, p.32) argues is a grave misrepresentation of the actual sampling procedures, and the second is at best misleading and incomplete, while the third is simply untrue (he knew their names)”. Additionally, Warwick (1973, p.32) reveals that both Humphreys and the project director of the "social health survey" may have distorted that study by allowing a sub-sample of fifty homosexuals to be blended into the total cross-section. Random (probability) sampling he argues is generally understood to include only those processes of selection in which the units of the sample are chosen by "chance" methods.
The consequences for doing the research TT can present both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, a research of this nature could encourage fear in the general public and the uncomfortable feeling that someone might be watching. According to Warwick (1973, p.34) “From now on tearoom participants must be on the alert not only for blackmailers and policemen, but for sociologists in voyeur's clothing”. He further adds:
The kind of research carried out by Humphreys raises a similar problem: an increased fear among ordinary citizens that someone, be he a social scientist or a credit checker, is watching. An important part of human freedom is the ability to withdraw into our home or other private domain and feel that we will not be observed. To the extent that social scientists engage in covert observation, however noble the cause, this freedom will be reduced.
(Warwick 1973, p.35)
On the other hand, the research TT has enhanced our understanding of homosexuals and as such provides an opportunity for change: change in the way we view homosexuals. From viewing them as all abnormal, to recognizing that some homosexuals are also normal and decent citizens. In this sense, the research has positive consequences.
Obedience to Authority.
The research “Obedience to Authority” by Stanley Milgram is a third example of an actual research, which might be considered controversial in terms of methods. In this research, Milgram tested how obedient normal individuals were to authority as opposed to conscience. The subjects believed they were part of an experiment supposedly dealing with the relationship between punishment and learning. An experimenter, who used no coercive powers beyond a stern demeanor instructed participants to shock a learner by pressing a lever on a machine each time the learner made a mistake on a word-matching task. Each subsequent error led to an increase in the intensity of the shock in 15-volt increments, from 15 to 450 volts. In actuality, the shock box was a fake. A majority of the subjects continued to obey to the end, believing they were delivering 450 volt shocks, simply because the experimenter commanded them to(Blass 2002, p.1). “Although subjects were told about the deception afterwards, the experience was a very real and powerful one for them during the laboratory hour itself” (Blass 2002, p.1).
This research can be considered controversial in terms of its methods employed, namely: deception and harm, which are in direct conflict with the principles of research ethics. Although the participants who functioned as teachers were not in reality shocking the learners when they made a mistake on a word-matching task, they truly believed during the research that they actually were inflicting harm to the learners, which on the one hand may have been psychologically and emotionally injurious to them. In fact, according to Rupert (2008, p.1) it created harm to some of the participants:
After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about a heart condition, all responses by the "learner" ceased. At times, the worried "teacher" questioned the "experimenter," asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the "experimenter" assumed full responsibility, the teacher" seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.
(Rupert 2008, p.1)
Similarly, Clarke (1999, p.164) claims that the subjects were exposed to harm. He argues that they were harmed by learning unpleasant things about themselves in an experiment that involved deception. Many participants he claims found out something unexpected about themselves; that they were more prone to obey authority figures than they might have supposed. He argues that while there may sometimes be long-term benefits to individuals to be derived from gaining this information about themselves, such self-discoveries can often be harmful rather than beneficial. Likewise, Baumrind (1985, p. 165–174) charged that this research exposed subjects to an unwelcome side of themselves. She described this process as ‘inflicted insight.’ Also, Herrera (2001, p.252) offers support to the same. He argues that “subjects may well have suffered from the realization that they would have hurt people, had the apparatus been genuine”.
Therefore, although they were debriefed after the fact and informed that they actually did not harm these learners as they were in truth not shocked, does not eradicate the psychological and emotional harm / turmoil that these teachers may have felt or may have been exposed to during the ordeal. For them, the experience at that given moment was real. Yet from another perspective it could be argued that being informed post the study that they in actuality did not inflict harm to the participants could help to heal or eradicate any harm incurred or exposed to.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the deception attempted to prevent harm and as such could be viewed as justified deception as it served a greater good – participants (learners) were shielded from harm as they were not actually shocked. In this sense, deception not only shielded harm but also helped to further the goals of the research. From this perspective, the study then is justifiable. Moreover, one could argue that there is no proof that the deception had a role in whether they would have made the decision to inflict harm. If anything, one would expect that the deception that Milgram provided, including sounds of people in pain, would have prevented the subjects from following orders, not enticed them (Herrera 2001, p.252).
The consequences of engaging Milgram’s obedience study have nevertheless been of value and as such the research can be justified. Regardless of the inherent deception and harm, the study could be viewed from a positive perspective in the sense that it offers an explanation as to why persons may have committed serious crimes, for example Nazi crimes and terrorists acts and perhaps challenges us to view them in another manner, as it is possible that their terrible actions could simply be a consequence of following orders. As such, it has generated a theory on obedience that subjects obey because they are in an 'agentic state' (Phillips 1975, p.524). In this manner, the research contributes to the literature on psychology and as such could be used as a justification for the study.
Regardless of how plausible this explanation is, one should however bear in mind that this cruel behavior as exemplified by some terrorists as war participants could very well be influenced by other factors and as such, one should be careful in accepting this explanation wholesale. In fact, Milgram (1974 as cited in Rupert 2008, p. 1) warned about this in his book Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. He notes that the legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, and the experiments say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations.
Additionally, the research has lead to profound instruction on fundamental notions about human nature. It highlights human vulnerability, our susceptibleness to situations and indicates that being innately wicked is not necessarily a pre-requisite for one individual to harm another. It also implies that normal people have the potential to inflict harm if placed in the right circumstances. Blass (2002, p. 1), Rupert (2008, p.1) and Szegedy-Maszak (2004, p.30) confirm these. According to Blass (2002, p.1) Milgram’s research demonstrated with clarity that ordinary individuals could be induced to act destructively even in the absence of physical coercion, and humans need not be innately evil or aberrant to act in ways that are reprehensible and inhumane.
He further adds while we would like to believe that when confronted with a moral dilemma we will act as our conscience dictates, the research indicates that in a concrete situation with powerful social constraints, our moral sense can easily be trampled. Furthermore, according to Rupert (2008, p.1) the theory that only the most severe monsters on the sadistic fringe of society would inflict cruelty is disproven. The research findings showed that, "two-thirds of this study's participants fall into the category of "obedient" subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes." Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts and none of the participants stopped before reaching 300 volts. Likewise, according to Szegedy-Maszak (2004, p.30) “These experiments demonstrate that Everyman is a potential torturer”. Therefore, though there are negative feelings towards the research on the one hand, on the other, it adds to the theory on obedience and as such can be justified.
Conclusion
The researches “Tuskegee Syphilis Study”, “Tearoom Trade” and “Obedience to Authority” are indeed controversial studies as they illicit strong and conflicting responses relating to the topic and methods. As such, justifications for the researches will either be weak or strong, depending on the perspective from which each is read. Consequently, in some cases, it is possible to justify approaches which, in other circumstances might be deemed unacceptable. The researches are nevertheless quite consequential as together, they have contributed to the literature in various disciplines, they have built theory and they have been quite instructive in highlighting the importance of ethics in research. Also, together, they have provided a number of valuable lessons for future research practice. Moreover, the fact that these researches have invoked controversy highlights how values / perspectives impinge on research, making it difficult to obtain a value / perspective free research, a research untouched by researchers, participants or readers and also, a research which can be seen as 'pure' and almost a thing/entity in its own right.
References
Allen J H (1997) ‘Survivor: Tuskegee experiment was racist, Nazi-like’ New York Amsterdam News 88 (22) p.15.
Babbie E (2004) Social Research Methods 10th edn California: Thomson & Wadsworth.
Baumrind D (1985) ‘Research using intentional deception: ethical issues revisited’ American Psychologist 40 pp.165–174.
Blass T (2002) ‘The man who shocked the world: Thomas Blass probes into the life of Stanley Milgram, the man who uncovered some disturbing truths about human nature’ Psychology Today Magazine, pp1-5 (ONLINE - < http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20020301-000037.html> Accessed on: 9th October 2008)
Caplan A L (1992) ‘When evil intrudes’ The Hastings Center Report 22 (6) pp. 29-32.
Clarke S (1999) ‘Justifying deception in social science research’ Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 pp.151–166.
Desroches F J (1990) ‘Tearoom trade: a research update’ Qualitative Sociology 13 (1) p.40.
Edgar H (1992) The Hastings Center Report 22 (6) pp. 32-35.
Fairchild A L and Bayer R (1999) ‘Uses and abuses of Tuskegee’ Science 284 (5416) pp.919- 921).
Fourtner A W, Fourtner C R and Herreid C F (2008) ‘Case teaching notes for "Bad Blood:" A case study of the Tuskegee Syphilis Project (ONLINE -
Hagen (2005) ‘Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and Legacy Recruitment for Experimental AIDS Vaccines’ New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education 105 p.31-41.
Hastings Center (1992) ‘Twenty years after: The legacy of the Tuskegee syphilis study’ Hastings Center Report 22 (6) p.29.
Herrera C D (2001) Ethics, Deception, and ‘Those Milgram Experiments’ Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (3) p.252.
Homan R (1980) ‘The ethics of covert methods’ The British Journal of Sociology 31 (1) pp. 46-59
Humphreys L (1970) ‘The sociologist as voyeur’ Trans-action 7 (15) p.15.
Humphreys L (1970) Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places New York: Aldine Publishing.
Katz R V, Kegeles S S, Kressin N R, Green B L, James S A, Wang M Q, Russell S L and Claudio C (2008) ‘Awareness of the Tuskegee syphilis study and the US Presidential apology and their influence on minority participation in biomedical research’ American Journal of Public Health 98 (6) pp. 1137-1142.
King P (1992) ‘The dangers of difference’ Hastings Center Report 22 (6) pp.35-38.
Kiple K F (1982) ‘Bad blood (Book Review)’ American Historical Review 87 (2) p.558.
Lamont A (2004) ‘What's wrong with being gay? Homosexual behavior versus the Bible’ (ONLINE - < http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html> Accessed on: 9th October 2008)
Milgram S (1974) ‘The perils of obedience’ Harper’s Magazine in D Rupert (ed) (2008) ‘The Milgram experiment: A lesson in depravity the power of authority and peer pressure’ (ONLINE - < http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm> Accessed on: 9th October 2008)
Norris and Walker (2005) ‘Naturalistic inquiry’ in B Somekh and C Lewin (eds) (2005) Research Methods in the Social Sciences London: Sage p.132.
Phillips J P N (1975) British Journal of Psychology 66 (4) p524.
Rupert D (2008) ‘The Milgram experiment: A lesson in depravity the power of authority and peer pressure’ (ONLINE - < http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm> Accessed on: 9th October 2008)
Shaw G B (1895) in U Wernick (ed) ‘Will the real homosexual in the Bible please stand up?’ Theology & Sexuality 11(3) pp.47-64
Sikes P (2006) ‘Scandalous stories and dangerous liaisons: when female pupils and male teachers fall in love’ Sex Education 6 (3) pp. 265–280.
Soble A (1978) ‘Deception in social science research: Is informed consent possible?’ The Hastings Center Report 8 (5) pp. 40-46.
Szegedy-Maszak M (2004) ‘Sources of Sadism’ U.S. News & World Report 136 (18) p.30.
Warwick D P (1973) ‘Tearoom trade: Means & ends in social research’ The Hastings Center Studies 1 (1) pp. 27-38.
Wax M (1977) ‘Fieldworkers and research subjects: Who needs protection?’ The Hastings Center Report 7 (4) pp. 29-32.
Wernick U (2005) ‘Will the real homosexual in the Bible please stand up?’ Theology & Sexuality 11(3) pp.47-64
No comments:
Post a Comment