Soc313 Introduction To The Miller Family: Sarah 40 Yrs And J

Soc313 Introduction To The Miller Familysarah 40 Yrs And Joe Miller

Based on the information presented above in the five case studies, you are to voice your view on how Institutional Review Boards (in the U.S.) and/or Review Ethics Boards (in Canada) should enforce a set of common rules regarding research. A. How much freedom should researchers be allowed in conducting their research? B. What regulations should be enforced to: -- prevent the abuse of research subjects and -- ensure, more generally, that the research strives to promote positive benefits for the larger society sponsoring it?

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical oversight of research involving human subjects is a critical concern in modern biomedical and social sciences. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States and Review Ethics Boards in Canada serve as gatekeepers to ensure that research complies with established ethical standards, protecting participants and maintaining public trust. In light of historical case studies such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, the Guatemala syphilis experiment, and controversial anthropological research on the Yanomami, it becomes apparent that the enforcement of common rules is essential to prevent abuse and promote societal benefits.

Determining the degree of freedom afforded to researchers involves balancing scientific inquiry with ethical responsibility. Researchers should have sufficient freedom to pursue knowledge but must operate within a framework of rigorous oversight. Unrestricted freedom can lead to ethical breaches, as exemplified by the Tuskegee experiment, where subjects were intentionally left untreated without informed consent. Therefore, regulations must impose boundaries that safeguard dignity, autonomy, and well-being, while still enabling valuable research.

One fundamental regulation is the strict requirement of informed consent, ensuring that participants are aware of the risks, benefits, and nature of the study. This principle was grossly violated in the Guatemala syphilis experiment, where subjects were infected without their knowledge, highlighting the necessity of transparent communication. Additionally, risk minimization protocols must be enforced, ensuring that risks are reasonable in relation to the potential benefits. For example, biomedical experiments on vulnerable populations should undergo enhanced scrutiny to prevent exploitation, as seen in the case of indigenous groups like the Huron-Wendat, where bones were exploited for research without adequate cultural sensitivity.

To prevent abuse, IRBs and ethics boards should enforce the implementation of data monitoring, confidentiality protections, and culturally sensitive approaches. The IRB's role in reviewing research protocols that involve vulnerable populations—such as children, indigenous groups, or individuals with diminished autonomy—is crucial. For example, the Yanomami case showed how lack of community consultation and cultural insensitivity can exacerbate harm. Therefore, ethics review processes must include community engagement, respectful consultation, and culturally relevant safeguards, aligning with what the Belmont Report advocates regarding respect for persons and justice.

Moreover, oversight should extend to international research collaborations, ensuring that local customs and laws are respected. Cases such as the illegal removal of remains from the Ontario ossuary demonstrated how cultural and spiritual considerations can clash with scientific research. Ethical review boards must therefore integrate cultural anthropology principles, ensuring that research does not transgress sacred or sensitive sites and respects the dignity of the community involved.

While some argue that excessive regulation may hinder scientific progress, history demonstrates that unchecked research can lead to significant ethical failures. For example, Neel’s genetic research among the Yanomami, without proper community engagement or feedback, led to community distrust and potential harm. Regulations should, therefore, not only prevent misconduct but also promote responsible, community-based, and participatory research models that uphold justice and respect for autonomy.

In conclusion, enforcing common rules across IRBs and ethics boards necessitates a balanced approach that maximizes research benefits while minimizing risks and respecting cultural sensitivities. Clear guidelines, rigorous oversight, community engagement, and transparency are essential to uphold the ethical standards that safeguard human dignity and enhance societal trust in research endeavors. Only through such measures can research truly serve the larger societal good without compromising individual rights and cultural values.

References

• Belmont Report. (1979). Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
• Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46). (1991). The Common Rule. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
• Shapiro, H. T. (1995). The Tower of Hope: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
• Reverby, S. M. (2011). Tuskegee's truths: Rethinking the history of research abuse. University of North Carolina Press.
• Agrawal, A. (2009). Cultural sensitivity and ethics in research with indigenous populations. Journal of Ethnobiology.
• Gordon, S. (2009). Research ethics and indigenous communities. Archives of Disease in Childhood.
• Hansson, S. O. (2002). The ethics of research in vulnerable populations. Journal of Medical Ethics.
• Kingsley, P. (2019). Repatriation of remains and cultural sensitivities: The Huron-Wendat case. Native Studies Review.
• Neel, J. V., & Chagnon, N. (1966). The Yanomami: The fierce people. Harvard University Press.
• Arcuri, L. (2020). Ethical considerations in international genetic research: Lessons from the Yanomami case. Nature Human Behaviour.