Sociology Assignment | Get Paper Help

follow the instructions in the order, please otherwise if can’t the time let me because I need it by tomorrow. 150 words which I paid for 5 pages not abstract just answer under the names with black ink.
Please call at 7038016811 thank you and God bless.

Gardiner

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Sociology Assignment | Get Paper Help
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THE YELLOW BUT ISSENTIAL THE COMMENTS FROM Marnie Carroll MOSTLY.

 

Jennie Garza 

If the social issue of suicide were to end, and people no longer committed suicide, it would change history, psychologically, ethically, and socially. It would mean that society has been able to understand the suicide and mental health of those who are high suicide risks. With the understanding, society and professionals know how to treat those who are suicide risks and help them succeed. For suicide, to no longer be a social issue, it would be a team effort since different triggers convince people to follow through with suicide. A ramification could be that people are suffering internally and possibly silently knowing they will not take their life. Society does not like to see people commit suicide, but for an induvial who does it is a way for them to take away there suffering, and if suicide is no longer an option, they may continue to suffer. History could change for the better because with the understanding and mental concerns of suicide, that allows people to start those tough conversations about suicide and provide support. They can also direct help for those in need resulting in preventing suicides and saving lives. According to the Suicide Prevention Lifeline website, evidence has proven that providing resources, having conversations and decreasing the access to possible things for someone to conflict self-harm helps reduce suicides (Suicide Prevention Lifeline, n.d.). I think being able to resolve suicide brings relationships together and reduces people feeling isolated by society.

I think for suicide to be resolved for military members, there would have to be no internal suffering, and the resources available would have to be successful. Part of the problem I notice with military members who have committed suicide is that they did not show any signs of being suicidal and kept it all internal. For suicide to resolve military members would have to voice their struggles and their mental state to ensure they get to the right resources and professions to help them during their difficult times. People will step up and help someone if they know their mental health is not stable, and having suicidal thoughts.

I think the ethical changes would be positive because people and professionals are behaving ethically to help those in need. Resolving suicides may help to eliminate ethical dilemmas concerning suicide. Ethical dilemmas are common when talking about physician-assisted suicides. If suicides were resolved, physician-assisted suicides would no longer be an option, which would eliminate ethical dilemmas that families and doctors must face.

I think the ramifications in society could be both positive and negative in resolving suicide as a social issue. Limiting suicides is positive because of all lives matter, and no one should get to the point where they think they must take their own lives. No loved ones will suffer due to the decisions of someone taking their own life. Also, relationships may get more durable due to more open communications and understanding suicide and why it may be an option for someone. Ramifications could also be negative because individuals could still be suffering internally with no hope or outlet.

 

Suicide Prevention Lifeline. (n.d.). We Can All Prevent Suicide. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/how-we-can-all-prevent-suicide.

 

Marnie Carroll 

Jennie

Excellent. And class are these tricky questions? 🙂

What are some of the most pressing issues not just in the U.S. but worldwide today?

How would the course of history change if these issues were resolved?

Why are some of these issues seemingly so pervasive and so difficult to solve, despite the fact that most people would agree they need to be?

How would the group psychology of the population you are studying change or how would it need to change in order to solve the problem?

And, class – how realistic do you feel it is for your issue to be solved? What are the barriers to this being solved? Why hasn’t it been solved yet?

 

Haley Hill 

My key issue has been suicide throughout our society and mainly throughout our military forces. If suicide was eventually solved it would absolutely be a historical moment. Social, psychosocial and ethical ramifications would be that no one is losing their life because of themselves. Behavioral health would have to be stronger and implemented more for this to occur, especially within the military. We have prevention programs that are put into place however they are not always used, especially when deployed or when people become too low onto themselves.

The ethical relationship between this group would knowing that you wouldn’t have to worry about someone committing the act and taking their life. Trust and love would continue to always be a factor. Losing someone to suicide or knowing someone who is struggling with the thought, creates a very rocky relationship. People continuously worry and it becomes very hard to try to help people who don’t want to be helped.

I think ramifications would be both positive and negative. Suicide can be viewed as selfish act, and for those who want to do it, do it because they are suffering. If suicide was solved globally, then those certain people may continue to experience suffering internally. I want to think, if suicide was solved then mental health throughout society would take a huge turn towards the better. Poor mental health is one of the largest factors of those at risk for suicide. Without having people suffer from that, the suicide percentage would be lower. Positive outcome of suicide being solved is that people would live and those around them would never have to feel pain because someone took their life.

Resources

Suicide Prevention Resource Center. (n.d.). Behavioral Health Care. Retrieved from https://www.sprc.org/settings/behavioral-health-care (Links to an external site.)

 

Marnie Carroll 

Manage Discussion Entry

Haley

— great points on both sides of the issue – you did some good thinking on different perspectives and issues that could come up.

And, class, as we think about research ethics more, we also need to think about the soundness of research more generally.

Not every source is suitable for use in a scholarly research paper such as your Final Project. When writing a scholarly research paper, using credible, reliable, and valid resources shows quality in your work as well. For example, it would not be appropriate to use a resource written by an author who is not an expert in the field, when information is biased, or when the information about the data gathering process is missing. In addition, outdated resources are typically not appropriate, unless they are original works.

Class, think about the peer-reviewed journal articles you have read thus far. Consider the degree of credibility, reliability, and validity and think about how and why peer-review is a system intended to help increase these aspects of scholarly material that is published.

Class, what are your thoughts on the quality of sources you are thinking about for your final work?

Best,

Dr. C

Nicole Blount 

Week 4 discussion 1

If the key issue that you are researching were solved, what would be the historical, psychological, ethical, and social ramifications of this solution?  How would the course of history change if this issue were resolved?  How would the group psychology of the population you are studying change or how would it need to change in order to solve the problem?  How would the ethical relationships within this group or surrounding this group change if this key issue were resolved?  And finally, what would be the ramifications in society at large if there was a resolution to this key issue/problem?  Would these be positive or negative?  Both?

How would the course of history change if this issue were resolved?

“For many years house Representative John Conyers and other Representatives in Congress have been working to pass federal legislation that would address racial profiling.  Conyers proposed legislation to stop Traffic Stop Racial Profiling.  The legislation failed in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010.  The act was introduced again in 2011.  This bill has still not been approved.  The historical and social ramification of the end of Racial Profiling would allow the federal government or private plaintiffs to sue for declaratory injunctive relief.” (CBSDC, n.d .End Profiling Act}  The law would also authorize the United State Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide grants for the development and implementation of best policing practices such as warning tracking systems, technology integration, and other management protocols that discourage profiling.

The history of Racial Profiling has been around since the United States Criminal Justice System (Union for Reform n.d. Judaism.  “Are the perceptions of others related to the perceptions of risks of an informal control” Crutchfield, R., & Fay, S. (2019) by policemen because of the color of a person’s skin.

How would the group psychology of the population you are studying change or how would it need to change in order to solve the problem? 

Psychologists are skilled to help communities, law enforcement, and government officials understand racial profiling.  A  Psychologist would have to work with African Americans and Hispanic communities to help heal their racial disparities and social and emotional scars.

How would the ethical relationships within this group or surrounding this group change if this key issue were resolved?  And finally, what would be the ramifications in society at large if there was a resolution to this key issue/problem?  Would these be positive or negative?  Both?  

This group of minorities would have to change their attitudes and allow their scars to heal and understand that racial profiling is illegal and has created illegal arrests.  They must not resist arrests and rely on new laws to heal their disparities.  They must understand if they cause conflicts with the police when they are stopped, this will have a negative impact by agitating the fact that racial profiling is illegal.  The resolution to these issues would be negative and positive.

\All ethnic races “rely on the police psychologically to protect them from harm and to promote fairness and justice in our communities

ReferenceCE

https://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/04/22/sen-ben-cardin-rep-john-conyersintroduce-end-racial-profiling-act/ (Links to an external site.) Retrieved 4-25-2020

https://urj.org/who-we-are (Links to an external site.) Retrieved 4-26-2020

https://urj.org/union-reform-judaism (Links to an external site.) Retrieved 4-28-2020

Crutchfield, R., & Fay, S. (2019). Perceptions of “others,” risk, and counter terrorism-related informal social control. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology (Sage Publications Ltd.)52(3), 315–333. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1177/0004865818786763

 

Christina Taylor 

Week 4 discussion 1

Ramifications of a Solution

If the key issue that you are researching were solved, what would be the historical, psychological, ethical, and social ramifications of this solution? 

  • If poverty was solved economically many companies and agencies would not benefit (Pawn shops, liquor stores, video poker establishments, payday loans, collection agencies).
  • Solving poverty reduces the mental and psychological effects that cause, health issues, anxiety, and stress.
  • Solving poverty also reduces the social and psychological harmful effects among children who will need to grow into productive citizens in society as well as adults, and increases cognitive development, educational attainment, decreased reliance on public benefits, increased earning potential, and decreased rates of incarceration.
  • Eliminating poverty will strengthen the family foundation, improve communication, interpersonal relationships, bring economic and social stability to families. This would also reduce divorce, abuse, and psychological distress.
  • Eliminating poverty increases social and economic advancement.
  • Eliminating poverty relieves our economy of billions of dollars annually and encourages economic growth and stability among social classes.
  • Eliminating poverty means a more advanced society with access to education (vocational or higher learning) training and academic resources.
  • Elimination of poverty will strengthen communities socially, psychologically, and economically.
  • Eliminating poverty strengthens democracy and society.
  • Elimination of poverty decreases crime, food desserts, and re-offenses.
  • Elimination of bias or constructs psychologically, consciously based on economic states but not the racial-ethnic background.

 

 How would the course of history change if this issue were resolved? 

  • Even if extreme poverty is eradicated, a lot of people will still look very poor to residents of higher-income economies. Prejudice would still occur however oppression would not be as high nor would disparity because there would some form of equity among the economy.
  • However, if poverty ends, we will be able to have happier societies and full economic stability, and an increase in material standards, culture, and goods. We would still have to work on the stability of our political systems and countries, social and cultural stability, awareness, and interconnections as a diverse society and globally.

 

How would the group psychology of the population you are studying change or how would it need to change in order to solve the problem?  

  • Economically the changes would be massive on a positive macro-level providing more access to education, jobs, growth and development, resources, and the ability to own and sustain resources as well as control them.
  • However, psychologically, politically, and socially this group still faces the major challenges of racism, lack of cultural acceptance and awareness of this group, bias, and stigmas, profiling, segregation which all have negative psychological effects mentally, physiologically, causing stress, anxiety and mental anguish and ailments.
  • Psychologically the perception of this group would not change, and I believe the perceptions bias and constructions of others outside this population/group will not change. It will still be a struggle for people of African origins to be accepted by other cultures.

 

How would the ethical relationships within this group or surrounding this group change if this key issue were resolved? And finally, what would be the ramifications in society at large if there was a resolution to this key issue/problem?  Would these be positive or negative?  Both?

  • If key issues were resolved like racism, oppression, stigmas, profiling, systemic discrimination, laws, and freedoms that restrict this group to full equality in conjunction to re-condition the minds of societies globally this group would have a true chance at social and political change, socio-cultural awareness respect and sensitivity, this group would have the opportunity to share and effectively engage and create trust and interpersonal relationships and bonds with other cultures outside their population/group. This would equal positive ramifications for a more peaceful balanced society.

Marnie Carroll 

Christina –

Fantastic work on this topic. I see that you have put a lot of thought into it, and all – in terms of researching it by reading over some articles:

 

As we know, you have access to a variety of social sciences journals in the Ashford Library. You should think of ways of using this great resource as you work toward your final paper. For example, if you were studying post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children you might search in journals such as the Journal of Traumatic Stress or the Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal. Searching in unfamiliar journals might lead to information that can add significantly to your research. For example, you might also search in a criminology journal, such as Violence and Victims. At first glance, some journals may not appear to directly relate to your research topic, but upon further review, you may see that they have relevance.

 

Class, what is the value of using peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles as opposed to web sites? What is your plan for being sure the sources you use in your capstone are truly solid? How will you identify good sources, and what types of journals may apply to your topic?

Best,

Dr. C

 Reply to Comment

Tasha Robinson 

If the key issue of the commercial sexual exploitation of children was solved I believe the historical ramifications would be foster youth would be able to gain a better understanding of who they are if they were able to successfully combat mental health issues and trauma. If we didn’t have a broken foster care system that would be the first step in solving the problem.  Fixing the system is the first key issue in helping to solve the problem. According to the journal article written by Joseph Doyle Jr, 2007, he states: “Despite the large number of children at high risk of poor life outcomes
served by child protective services, it is unclear whether removing children from home and placing them in foster care is beneficial or harmful for child development, especially for children at the margin of placement.” Family preservation should be key unless it is absolutely necessary to remove a child.  Throughout history, we have seen children removed from homes especially minority children and the reasoning was not always a good one. If we can focus on helping the family get on track and stay on track then we could change history. Treat the whole family in regards to mental health and teach them how to not repeat the negative life cycles that have been thrown their way.

From a psychological viewpoint, one must first address the mental health trauma that many CSEC youth experience before they even become involved in CSEC.  “Researchers have documented the association between experiencing childhood sexual abuse and CSEC. Experiencing childhood emotional abuse is also significantly associated with being trafficked and with younger ages of entry into the commercial sex industry” (Ijadi-Maghsoodi, R., et.al, 2016). If mental health experts could help individuals who are dealing with or have dealt with emotional and sexual abuse and actually provide positive outcomes through therapy and rehabilitation I believe we would see a drop in the number of victims. Mental health is a key factor when dealing with victims of CSEC and in order for the group psychology of the population to change mental health needs to be taken more seriously in this country.

Ethically and socially we all know that child sex trafficking or any type of human trafficking is wrong. If the problem would be solved I believe we would see an increase in this population seeing the overall value of their lives and the lives of others. Often times victims of CSEC seek out to recruit new victims if the problem were to be solved then the mentality of this population would be to protect not themselves but others because they would have a moral and ethical reason to do so.

Socially we have seen the effects of social and news media. If there was more social and news media attention brought to this issue I believe we would begin to see more social changes in regards to CSEC. If the problem was solved socially then I think social media platforms would be used to garner the attention needed to help combat sex trafficking. Campaigns would be started and I believe more grassroots organizations, influencers, and civil and human rights activists would come into play to help continue the spread of getting the word out on how dangerous the CSEC world can be.

The positive ramifications would that families and children would not have to ever be afraid of becoming a victim of CSEC. I think there would a peace that would blanket this world. The thought of having to constantly watch your back would not be there anymore. People would feel safe letting the children play outside or go to the park without the worry of them being kidnapped. Children in foster care would be receiving all the necessary tools for reunification, and mental health needs would be met so that they wouldn’t feel as they that was their only option out. I feel overall the world would be a much better and safer place to live.

References:

Ijadi-Maghsoodi, R., Cook, M., Barnert, E. S., Gaboian, S., & Bath, E. (2016). Understanding and Responding to the Needs of Commercially Sexually Exploited Youth: Recommendations for the Mental Health Provider. Child and adolescent psychiatric clinics of North America25(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2015.08.007 (Links to an external site.)

Doyle, Joseph, J Jr. 2007. “Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care.” American Economic Review, 97 (5): 1583-1610.DOI: 10.1257/aer.97.5.1583

Marnie Carroll 

Tasha,
Wow, this is a really excellent post covering many great points! Thank you!
And, this issue of barriers to social change is interesting too, isn’t it? In other words, we are discussing what would have to change about groups’ social psychology, what would have to happen for the issue to be resolved, what would happen if it were resolved and so forth, yet why is it that many issues do seem to repeat and not get resolved?
So, is it true that history repeats itself, and if so, why? I mean, if for example war doesn’t seem to create peace, why do human societies continue to wage wars? If genocide and ethnic cleansing have not helped the societies doing this, why do they and others continue to do it? If oppressing minorities has not lead to stability and prosperity for ruling groups because of insurgence and revolutions, why does oppression continue?
How can society truly propel itself forward from these backwards practices that have been recurring for many, many millennia?
Best,
Dr. C

 

Alexis Rognholt 

If childhood trauma was solved, our future would be indescribable. Childhood trauma unravels some of the most negative actions that human beings create, more importantly, the continued traumas that are ensued on others due to traumas not being unpacked. If resources and opportunities to work through traumas were available to every person, there wouldn’t be a inequality gap of care to those in low income minority populations. I don’t think there is a way to get childhood traumas to come to a solution though, due to human nature and the biology of human behavior. Most of every human behavior occurs because of un resolved trauma experiences – nurture in a child’s life is as important as nature. Looking at nature, you look at the generational traumas that have occurred over many decades – how are we to solve the issue of childhood trauma, with emphasis on low income minorities, with the generational trauma that they have experienced? I don’t quite know the answer in how to solve this issue because it has multiple facades to tackle. The populations most affected by generational trauma would be forever changed if it came to a stop, they would be treated equally, they wouldn’t deal with discriminatory experiences, and they would be just as successful as the next person without having to jump through extra hoops. In order to eradicate childhood trauma, the mental health therapy and resource push needs to be the number one focus of the nation because until everyone seeks help for things they have experienced, nothing will change. Ethically, relationships would grow towards further connectedness and positive intentions between individuals – people would break down barriers that have been there for decades. Ramifications would be mostly on the individuals who do not want change for their own power plays – if this issue was fixed, there would be many people who were against the changes because of their self righteous desires.

Marnie Carroll 

Alexis,

You have chosen a tough topic but it a topic that definitely needs research and changes in.  Child abuse is rampant and is in need of solutions to stop the abuse towards children.  There are positives as well as negatives when it comes to this social concerns.  Do you believe that a person can really be rehabilitated and live with their child again?  Solutions to this will bring about less crime and family togetherness.  Jobs may be lost but the family will be intact and connected.  Parents will be able to get back to the jobs they were supposed to be doing and that is to raised their children with help from society.  Great post and good luck with paper.

Best regards,

Dr. Marnie E. Carroll

 Reply to Comment

Michael Redmayne 

The “Onset of Stuttering” later named “The Monster Study” was a highly unethical psychological experiment performed in the late 1930s by the University of Iowa on 22 orphans. The experiment was to understand the phenomenon of stuttering in children and adults after many promising treatments failed. The experiment was to prove that stuttering was a learned behavior, and if the behavior can be learned it can be unlearned. The study performed the experiments by telling non-stuttering children that they did in fact stutter and stuttering children that they did not stutter. The experiment failed of the non-stutters labeled stutters two improved speech, two stayed the same, and two participants speech fell dramatically. The stutters labeled non-stutters the results where the same. Later studies showed, that children who have a significant stutter eventually grow out of the habit; with around one percent carry that habit into adulthood. As a result of the experiment many of the initial non-stutters developed severe and deep psychological and emotional problems that carried into adulthood.

What made this experiment unethical was that it was performed on orphans and they were not told the exact extent of the experiment. Any experiment needs the complete consent of the participants. Parents can give consent on behalf of their child but because this experiment was done on orphans, no consent was given. the true nature of the experiment was also kept secret from the children. The children were only told that they were to be given speech therapy. The orphans began a lawsuit against the State of Iowa and the University of Iowa and is now the subject of a multi-million dollar lawsuit ant the basis of unethical studies.

References:

Reynolds G. March 16, 2013 The Stuttering Doctor’s ‘Monster Study” The New York Times Magazine retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/magazine/the-stuttering-doctor-s-monster-study.html (Links to an external site.)

Marnie Carroll 

Michael– great example of an ethical issue in research. You explain the nuances well regarding the conflicts that were inherent in this research design and implementation. Really good work.

So, what exactly is an institutional review board (IRB) and what is their role in terms of research and ethics?

Best regards,
Dr. Marnie E. Carroll

Reply to Comment

Tasha Robinson 

 

Henrietta Lacks was an African American woman who in 1951 visited John Hopkins Hospital due to vaginal bleeding.  A renowned doctor by the name of Dr. Howard Jones discovered upon examination of Henrietta a large malignant tumor on her cervix. At the time radium treatment was the best option to treat cervical cancer so Henrietta began treatment and during this time another doctor by the name of George Grey collected samples during a biopsy of Henrietta’s cervical tissues. Dr. Grey was a well-known researcher in the cancer field and always collected samples from his patients but the cells collected never lived. Henrietta’s were different and proved to be immortal. The problem is no one asked Henrietta’s permission to use her cells and her family knew nothing for 25 years.  Scientists studied the family under the impression of wanting to “test” them for cancer while the medical industry profited immensely from Ms. Lacks cells which they named HeLa cells. Her cells have been used in the development of the polio vaccine and studied for leukemia, AIDS, and other viruses.

The problem is that in 1951 we were in the heart of the Jim Crow era. Ms. Lacks was seen in the segregated ward of the hospital and while she did receive care and treatment it wasn’t uncommon back then for black people to be treated as second and third-class citizens. Lacks was sent home many times during her cancer treatment until she finally put her foot down and demanded they keep her at the hospital but by that time it was too late.  While Dr. Grey never profited off of the cells because he gave them out freely to the medical community others down the line did. The family not knowing for 25 years of the contribution Henrietta made to science is unethical and wrong and the family should have been notified when they first discovered the cells were different. After Henrietta died at the age of 30 in 1951 the family was used under the guise of being tested for cancer and never receiving any results from the test. We have a lack of consent, lack of transparency, and a lack of moral obligation to the family.

Author Rebekka Skloot wrote a book about Henrietta entitled The Immortal Life of Henrietta Slacks. Ms. Skloot did an interview about her book and her interactions with Henrietta’s daughter Deborah which can be found at https://www.npr.org/transcripts/123232331.  (Links to an external site.)

References:

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/123232331 (Links to an external site.)

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/importance-of-hela-cells.html (Links to an external site.)

 Reply  to Comment

 

Jennie Garza 

Dr. Lauretta Bender was a child neuropsychiatrist who spent the 1930’s-1960’s conducting multiple experiments on electroshock therapy on children who had schizophrenia and autism. According to Dr. Hon Breeding (2014), Bender studies injected children as young as three years old with ECT, tranquilizers such as Thorazine. Hallucinogens such as LSD and psychoactive drugs. She even admitted to shocking 20 children under the age of three years old. She treated an estimated 500 children at Bellelvue Hospital in New York. She also stated that electroshocks and drugs were effective and safe. The thought of the benefits of electroshock and drugs was to help autistic children by providing psychedelic experiments that would help perceptual growth and decrease delays. She mentally scarred children who received her treatments, and many were dragged down the hospital hallways crying to get treatments. Ted Chabaskinski was a six-year-old boy who was one of the participants in Dr. Bender’s experiment. Due to the electroshock, he lost some of his memories, such as not being able to remember his best friend, who his teachers were, or his way around his neighborhood. The treatments did not just affect them mentally but physically, as well. The electroshock was an excruciating procedure on the children and left them scarred. Some of the children who received the electroshock therapy attempted suicide because they were afraid of dying and wanted to end it quicker instead of dragging it out with the numerous electroshock therapies. The shocks lasted30 to 60 seconds but caused life-threatening complications such as apnea and cardiac arrest. Children would also become unconscious for several minutes after the shocks. Death was a possible side effect of getting the electroshock therapy, which during one of the studies of 95 participants, one child died during the electroshock therapy. Memory loss and brain damage were determined to be a typical result of electroshock (Breeding, 2014).

 

Dr. Lauretta Bender’s experiments were unethical because she conducted electroshock therapy on children’s brains, causing permeant brain damage and memory loss. Her procedures even traumatized the children mentally, emotionally, and physically. Breeding mentioned that some of the children attempted suicide, including a 9-year old boy who was afraid to continue getting the treatments because he thought it was going to kill him. He wanted to take his own life so it could be quick instead of prolonging his death. Bender’s experiments caused other studies to be done concerning suicides linked to electroshock therapy. Children do not comprehend complicated stuff such as electroshock therapy and do not understand why they must do the sessions. Children did not get a voice on what happens to them and the permeant effects that were caused by the shocks.

 

Breeding, J. (2014, February 11). Electroshocking Children: Why It Should Be Stopped. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/02/electroshocking-children-stopped/

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

Haley Hill 

TuesdayApr 28 at 3:38pm

Manage Discussion Entry

A crazy example of a violation of good ethnical conduct in research in the social sciences is the Facebook emotion study, which breached ethical guidelines. I use this example because Facebook is one of the longest social media accounts that consume millions of people’s lives. It is a great tool with keeping connections to long lost friends as well as sharing information.

In 2012, Facebook and Cornell University conducted an experiment called the Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. This study allowed Facebook researchers to manipulate Facebook user’s news feeds (nearly 700,000) to display differing amounts of positive and negative posts from the people they followed in order to determine whether their succeeding posts were affected by the positivity or negativity of the different posts that were viewed (Flick, 2016). The purpose of this study was to determine if the more positive or negative posts read, would change users emotional state, referred to as ‘emotional contagion’. Facebook had allowed researchers to access a significant amount of data which was produced by manipulating users through computerized determination of positive and negative levels.

The main ethical breach made was that Facebook users did not give their consent to the study, and rather Facebook researchers collecting the data did not seek explicit informed consent from anyone. I can see where Facebook and the Cornell researchers were trying to go with their study and if done ethically, could have actually have some poise to it. They wanted to produce the understanding of the impact of social media on society. Although manipulating people to experiment and use that form of study to conduct analysis in identifying positive and negative posts was unethically correct. The question of how the researchers would have been able to determine accurate data if their participants knew what was going on is a liable question; however, they could of let social media know a research study was going to be conducted and users could have selected their consent if they wanted to be a part of it. With that poll given, a random sampling could have been done, giving people the reassurance that they may or may not be included into the study and would essential act as normal. “A company should state up front if they are going to be, for example, using user data for purposes other than as communication between users, and, as accurately as possible, what sorts of outcomes this use may have” (Flick, 2016, pp. 20). Facebook overall failed to seek ethical oversight despite ostensibly manipulating peoples’ emotions.

Flick, C. (2016). Informed consent and the Facebook emotional manipulation study. Research Ethics12(1), 14–28. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016115599568 (Links to an external site.)

 Reply Reply to Comment

Doretha Hall 

WednesdayApr 29 at 8:24am

Manage Discussion Entry

WEEK 4 DISCUSSION 2

Harry Harlow’s The Pit of Despair – An unethical experiment

Harry Harlow is an American psychologist.  Most of his work was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  He is best known for his experiments with rhesus monkeys to study the effects of abandonment, separation, and isolation. The monkeys were used to learn about clinical depression and isolation.  After the monkeys bonded with their mothers, he separated them by putting them into a pit for one year. In some instances, the monkeys weren’t in the pit for a full year but being frequently isolated from other monkeys.   He collected a group of monkeys ranging from three months to three years old to test partial isolation.  After being isolated for three months, one of six monkeys were released five days later; the monkey died because it refused to eat.  The monkeys were deprived maternally; they showed no affection and were almost destroyed socially.  In another experiment, Harlow raised monkeys from birth and put them in single chambers. Three groups of newborn monkeys were isolated in individual chambers for 3, 6, and 12 months to test total isolation. The monkeys were depressed, suffered complete maternal separation, and they became aggressive and hostile. From this experiment, Harlow stated that “no monkeys died during isolation; they usually went into a state of emotional shock, characterized by autistic self-clutching and rocking” (Reading Between The Dunes, 2015). He also used a rape rack to breed monkeys.  Females were placed on the rack, and when they refused to mate, Harlow would have them inseminated. He found that the isolated mothers would kill their infants by chewing off fingers and toes or crushing the infants’ heads with their teeth. The study’s findings are that total and semi-isolation prove that the monkeys are reduced to the social-emotional level in which the primary social responsiveness is fear and hostility.

The research study was testing the effects of abandonment, separation, and isolation.  Harlow was interested in how abandonment, loneliness and stress affected humans, so he decided to use rhesus monkeys in his experiment because he knew he could not use humans for his research.

 

The experiment was unethical because it is cruelty to animals, which is animal abuse.  The study caused the monkeys to die, to become aggressive when they were isolated over some time.

 

Reading Between The Dunes. (2015, January 05). Manic Monday: Harlow’s Pit of Despair, the Rape Rack and Iron Maidens.  https://neuravinci.com/2015/01/05/manic-monday-harlows-pit-of-despair-the-rape-rack-and-iron-maidens/ (Links to an external site.)

 

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONMarnie Carroll

Marnie Carroll 

ThursdayApr 30 at 4:16pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Doretha –  this is an apt example and good explanation.

And, here are a few more questions  –

Do you feel that inmates are a “vulnerable population” as many codes of ethics state?

Universities require students to meet ethical codes in doing major research projects such as theses. What are some research requirements Ashford has in place?

Do you think that researchers are doing things today that might be deemed wrong in years to come? Will morals change again?

Have we ever actually learned useful information from unethical experiments?

Are our examples illustrations of why social scientists can not conduct the same types of experiments as, say, those in the hard science who work in laboratory settings? When human beings are what we are studying, is it more difficult to do traditional experimental methods?

What might be the long term effects on the subjects of this research?

Best regards,

Dr. Marnie E. Carroll

 Reply Reply to Comment

Nicole Blount 

WednesdayApr 29 at 5:06pm

Manage Discussion Entry

The Monkey Drug Trials was a research experiment conducted in 1969.

An unethical experiment was conducted to study the effects of drug addiction using animals.

The mistreatment of animals is illegal and a violation of good ethical conduct.

The purpose of the experiment was to

The first step in this experiment was to teach the monkeys how to inject drugs into their body.

The drugs used were morphine alcohol, cocaine, codeine, and a mixture of amphetamines. The monkeys were left with a large number of drugs to use when they wanted to inject themselves.

The results of this experiment were drug addiction, drug overdoses, and how crazed the monkeys became after they had exceeded over 12 ounces of the drugs in a 24 hour period.

Some of the monkeys attempted to escape from their cages and broke limbs in the process. (PMC, 2012).

I believe any cruel treatment of animals is unethical.

References

 

https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info/unethical-experiements-psychology/ (Links to an external site.)

The Standardising Of Drugs By Experiments On Animals. (1900). The British Medical Journal2(2068), 447.

 

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONChristina Taylor

Christina Taylor 

ThursdayApr 30 at 9:44am

Manage Discussion Entry

Christina Taylor

April 30, 2020

Week 4 discussion 2

Ethical Research in the Social Sciences

 

Violation of good ethical conduct in research in the social sciences

 

 

 

Agent Orange

  • Agent Orange Experiments
  • Agent Orange was a tactical herbicide used by the U.S. military from 1962 to 1975, named for the orange band around the storage barrel. The military sprayed millions of gallons of Agent Orange and other tactical herbicides on trees and vegetation during the Vietnam War.

The idea and use of agent orange came from Operation Ranch Hand During the Vietnam War, the U.S military engaged in an aggressive program of chemical warfare codenamed Operation Ranch Hand. From 1961 to 1971, the U.S. military sprayed a range of herbicides across more than 4.5 million acres of Vietnam to destroy the forest cover and food crops used by enemy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. U.S. aircraft were deployed to douse roads, rivers, canals, rice paddies and farmland with powerful mixtures of herbicides. During this process, crops and water sources used by the non-combatant native population of South Vietnam were also hit. In all, American forces used more than 20 million gallons of herbicides in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia during the years of Operation Ranch Hand. Herbicides were also sprayed from trucks and hand-sprayers around U.S. military bases. The main purposes were the destruction of Vietnam territory which led to the massive environmental devastation of the U.S. defoliation program in Vietnam, that nation has reported that some 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange. In addition, Vietnam claims half a million children have been born with serious birth defects, while as many 2 million people are suffering from cancer or other illness caused by Agent Orange (U.S. Departments of Veterans Affairs, 2015).

 

 

 

Exposure to Agent Orange is associated with many diseases. The diseases now on the VA’s Agent Orange list are ischemic heart disease, lung and trachea cancers, prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s Disease, type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, AL amyloidosis, chronic B-cell leukemia, chloracne, early-onset peripheral artery disease. If you were exposed to Agent Orange during your military service, you may qualify for VA disability benefits. Which many received such as my father who was a Vietnam vet who was part of the study and later diagnosed with diabetes and other ailments. He also died still with herbicide/agent orange still in his body decades later.

  • Prisoners, like people of color, have often been the unwilling objects of evil experiments. From 1965 to 1966, Dr. Albert Kligman, funded by Dow Chemical, Johnson & Johnson, and the U.S. Army, conducted what was deemed “dermatological research” on approximately 75 prisoners. What was actually being studied was the effects of Agent Orange on humans. Prisoners were injected with dioxin (a toxic byproduct of Agent Orange) 468 times the amount the study originally called for. The results were prisoners with volcanic eruptions of chloracne (severe acne combined with blackheads, cysts, pustules) on the face, armpits, and groin. Long after the experiments ended, prisoners continued to suffer from the effects of the exposure. Dr. Kligman, apparently very enthusiastic about the study, was quoted as saying, “All I saw before me were acres of skin… It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time.” Kligman went on to become the doctor behind Retin-A, a major treatment for acne (Schwartz., 2014).

 

 

 

 

 

After you have explained the experiment and its procedure, then provide an argument that displays why this research methodology was unethical. 

  • Agent Orange was said to be used to destroy the guerrillas of cover and cut their food supply. But the modus-operandi was unethical. Unethical because, it did not affect the enemy, but more the innocent civilians. And destroyed land and vital crops needed for human survival.
  • In addition, 58,000 Americans and 2 to 3 million Vietnamese, many of them civilians, were killed in the war. Untold numbers were wounded. Many US veterans of the war suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. More US Vietnam War vets have committed suicide than died in the war. However, those numbers do not begin to tell the complete story of the war. Approximately 3 million Vietnamese and thousands of US and allied soldiers were exposed to Agent Orange/dioxin. Those exposed to Agent Orange/dioxin often have children and grandchildren born with serious illnesses and disabilities. There is a virtual unanimity of opinion within the international scientific community that exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin caused some forms of cancers, reproductive abnormalities, immune and endocrine deficiencies, and nervous system damage. Second- and third-generation victims continue to be born in Vietnam, as well as to US veterans and Vietnamese Americans in the United States. For many of them and their progeny, the suffering continues (U.S. Departments of Veterans Affairs, 2015).
  • I have not found in my recent research that any reciprocity or aid has yet been granted except to select veterans that qualify and there are a few bills still in progress for victims of agent orange in Vietnam and in the U.S. H.R. 334, the Victims of Agent Orange bill has been introduced but not yet passed.

 

 

 

 

References

History channel. (2019). Agent orange. Retrieved from History: https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange-1

Schwartz.L. (2014). 10 of the most evil medical experiments in history. Retrieved from https://www.salon.com/2014/09/04/10_of_the_most_evil_medical_experiments_in_history_partner/

U.S. Departments of Veterans Affairs. (2015). Facts About Herbicides. Retrieved from Public Health: https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/basics.asp

 Reply Reply to Comment

Marnie Carroll 

YesterdayMay 2 at 5:46pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Christina,

Your research study was a great example of unethical research practices. And – in terms of vulnerable groups such as inmates, the IRB protects the rights and welfare of all humans, regardless of their situations (Landrum, 2012). Similarly, Landrum discusses a study conducted on orphan children, and I think as in your case, these children were taken advantage of because of their circumstance. Certain groups, like children are provided additional protections and must have parental consent in order to participate in research studies (Landrum, 2012). These children were not made aware of the potential risks of the study and many of them reported being affected by it many years later.

 

References:

Landrum, R.E. (2012). Research and writing in the social sciences. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

 

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONTosha Garner

Tosha Garner 

ThursdayApr 30 at 4:23pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Little Albert is a good example of unethical conduct in research, and it is something I learned in my first psychology class. Little Albert was a nine-month-old baby who was the participant in John Watson’s study. Their study was to show how phobias emerge by training the baby to associate a rat with loud noises. Essentially Watson was building off of Pavlov’s research to prove that emotional reactions could be classically conditioned.
They began the study by showing Little Albert a mouse, then anytime they would show the baby the rat they would hit a metal pipe with a hammer. The baby’s immediate response was to cry when the loud noise was made. After a while anytime the baby was shown the rat it would cry and turn the opposite way trying to get away from the rat. The baby ended up having a phobia of anything white and fuzzy. Watson was never able to undo the fear he instilled in the baby because after the experiment the mother and her baby moved away.

Along with that another reason this research was flawed was that Little Albert had hydrocephalus, which is when fluid builds up in the brain. Watson knew about this before the experiment but ignored the baby’s condition and kept on with his study. Little Albert ended up dying at the age of six due to hydrocephalus.

The way Watson went about the study was unethical because instead of having set standards for the baby’s reaction he went off what he perceived, which can be defined differently by each person. Also, I personally think the way the experiment was conducted was a bit brutal and harsh. Little Albert had a short life, and for him sadly he had issues due to the careless actions of a psychologist.

References:

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-little-albert-experiment-2794994 (Links to an external site.)

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONAkayla Salido

Akayla Salido 

ThursdayApr 30 at 9:18pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Week 4 Discussion 2

In 1967, first-year teacher Ron Jones, was trying to answer a question that we still have to this day “how did the holocaust happen?”. To answer this question for his sophomore social studies class, Mr. Jones decided to experiment with how many “followers” he could get within a few days. He told the students about the experiment, and changed his demeanor to be sterner, and made a new set of rules for his classroom (Aron, 2017). He figured the experiment would end there, but when he entered his classroom the next day, all the students greeted him in unison, as set by his rules the day before. Mr. Jones implemented a Nazi-like hand gesture, standing to ask questions, and worked on projects about ways to eliminate democracy (Aron, 2017). This teacher basically coerced his students into being his followers, with him being the Hitler leader. There was an implemented logo “Strength Through Discipline” that the students made banners saying. Another major point was that Mr. Jones told the students that if the went along with the experiment, they would get an “A”, and if they tried to overthrow him in any way, they would receive an “F’. There were endless rules and protocols for these students within this teacher experiment, and they even had to follow the rules at home (Aron, 2017). This article mentioned “But as a simulation of the normalization of fascism — the pleasure of membership, the creeping thrill of exclusion, and the comfort of discipline and rules — the experiment was unquestionably a success” (para. 12). This experiment proved to be ethically wrong as he went out of the realm of what a teacher can do. Mr. Jones started a cult within a matter of four days. Students that were not even his were writing the logo that their friends had shared and were even following all of the rules that the teacher had set in other classrooms. The point was proven as to how easily people are persuaded to follow, but many students were terrified by the end of its course.

Reference

Aron, N. R. (2017). “This 1967 Classroom experiment proved how easy it was for Americans to become Nazis”. Retrieved from https://timeline.com/this-1967-classroom-experiment-proved-how-easy-it-was-for-americans-to-become-nazis-ab63cedaf7dd

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONAshley Rose Daga

Ashley Rose Daga 

FridayMay 1 at 6:51pm

Manage Discussion Entry

In 1968, Ms. Jane Elliot, a school teacher, performed an exercise known as the ‘Blue Eyes – Brown Eyes.’  It was conducted on young third grade children facing racial prejudice within society.  This was accomplished the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King.  I believe this was a violation of ethics as the experiment, research, or survey and the questions of emotional discomfort was a factor.  The concept behind this exercise was to see how the young children would treat each other based on the color of their eyes.  The experiment focused on the stereotypes or judgement of someone based on the color of their skin and how other children reacted.  The teacher informed students that those who are superior are smarter for having brown eyes and the minority were the children with blue eyes.

As I stated the population for this exercise was on young third grade children, who was impressionable and at times cannot hide their emotions when put into a situation out of their norm.  Their ages ranged from 8-10, all white, middle class children, had different color eyes, hair, male/female and some who were glasses.  Many of these children grew up together and new each other for many years.  But with Ms. Elliot stating those with brown eyes are better than others with blue eyes, she wanted to see if they would eventually turn against each other or migrate towards kids who looked similar.  Some children began to fight each other on the playground, calling each other names, which was first started by the colors of their eyes.  The roles were eventually reversed and the children were once the ‘minority’ with no rights or say-so, were now the dominate power and treating the other children with different colored eyes the same way they were being treated.

I would like to think when looking at the research that Ms. Elliott conducted for the third grades students back in 1968, there may have been some of the ways that she conducted the research that was questionable or unethical in the eyes of the public. The goal was to see how the children acted like through ‘Power’ and through ‘Oppression’ between the blue eye and brown eye children. The thought of putting the young children in a state of discomfort and power by testing their emotions (only for a short time and then the roles were changed), with hopes to have the children open their eyes on the inequalities of racial prejudice. This research focused on how the people from all colors and ages displayed the unfortunate prejudice and discrimination within today’s society.

Reference

Ellliott, J. (N.D.). Brown eyes and blue eyes Racism experiment Children Session. Retrieve from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGvoXeXCoUY (Links to an external site.)

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONMarnie Carroll

Marnie Carroll 

YesterdayMay 2 at 5:44pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Ashley

This is a great response. You are really spot on and have found some of the most important examples to illustrate these problems with unethical research. Great job.
Class, the American Sociological Association has a very interesting and clear code of ethics. What do you find of interest here, and do you think these codes address the problems that previous unethical research had?

Printer Friendly Version Of American Sociological Association: Ethics and the Code of Ethics

http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf (Links to an external site.)

http://www.asanet.org/membership/code-ethics (Links to an external site.)

ASA Code of Ethics
The American Sociological Association’s (ASA’s) Code of Ethics sets forth the principles and ethical standards that underlie sociologists’ professional responsibilities and conduct. These principles and standards should be used as guidelines when examining everyday professional activities. They constitute normative statements for sociologists and provide guidance on issues that sociologists may encounter in their professional work.
ASA’s Code of Ethics consists of an Introduction, a Preamble, five General Principles, and specific Ethical Standards. This Code is also accompanied by the Rules and Procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics which describe the procedures for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints of unethical conduct.
The Preamble and General Principles of the Code are aspirational goals to guide sociologists toward the highest ideals of sociology. Although the Preamble and General Principles are not enforceable rules, they should be considered by sociologists in arriving at an ethical course of action and may be considered by ethics bodies in interpreting the Ethical Standards.
The Ethical Standards set forth enforceable rules for conduct by sociologists. Most of the Ethical Standards are written broadly in order to apply to sociologists in varied roles, and the application of an Ethical Standard may vary depending on the context. The Ethical Standards are not exhaustive. Any conduct that is not specifically addressed by this Code of Ethics is not necessarily ethical or unethical.

Membership in the ASA commits members to adhere to the ASA Code of Ethics and to the Policies and Procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics. Members are advised of this obligation upon joining the Association and that violations of the Code may lead to the imposition of sanctions, including termination of membership. ASA members subject to the Code of Ethics may be reviewed under these Ethical Standards only if the activity is part of or affects their work-related functions, or if the activity is sociological in nature. Personal activities having no connection to or effect on sociologists’ performance of their professional roles are not subject to the Code of Ethics.
PREAMBLE
This Code of Ethics articulates a common set of values upon which sociologists build their professional and scientific work. The Code is intended to provide both the general principles and the rules to cover professional situations encountered by sociologists. It has as its primary goal the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom sociologists work. It is the individual responsibility of each sociologist to aspire to the highest possible standards of conduct in research, teaching, practice, and service.
The development of a dynamic set of ethical standards for a sociologist’s work-related conduct requires a personal commitment to a lifelong effort to act ethically; to encourage ethical behavior by students, supervisors, supervisees, employers, employees, and colleagues; and to consult with others as needed concerning ethical problems. Each sociologist supplements, but does not violate, the values and rules specified in the Code of Ethics based on guidance drawn from personal values, culture, and experience.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The following General Principles are aspirational and serve as a guide for sociologists in determining ethical courses of action in various contexts. They exemplify the highest ideals of professional conduct.
Principle A: Professional Competence
Sociologists strive to maintain the highest levels of competence in their work; they recognize the limitations of their expertise; and they undertake only those tasks for which they are qualified by education, training, or experience. They recognize the need for ongoing education in order to remain professionally competent; and they utilize the appropriate scientific, professional, technical, and administrative resources needed to ensure competence in their professional activities. They consult with other professionals when necessary for the benefit of their students, research participants, and clients.
Principle B: Integrity
Sociologists are honest, fair, and respectful of others in their professional activities—in research, teaching, practice, and service. Sociologists do not knowingly act in ways that jeopardize either their own or others’ professional welfare. Sociologists conduct their affairs in ways that inspire trust and confidence; they do not knowingly make statements that are false, misleading, or deceptive.
Principle C: Professional and Scientific Responsibility
Sociologists adhere to the highest scientific and professional standards and accept responsibility for their work. Sociologists understand that they form a community and show respect for other sociologists even when they disagree on theoretical, methodological, or personal approaches to professional activities. Sociologists value the public trust in sociology and are concerned about their ethical behavior and that of other sociologists that might compromise that trust. While endeavoring always to be collegial, sociologists must never let the desire to be collegial outweigh their shared responsibility for ethical behavior. When appropriate, they consult with colleagues in order to prevent or avoid unethical conduct.
Principle D: Respect for People’s Rights, Dignity, and Diversity
Sociologists respect the rights, dignity, and worth of all people. They strive to eliminate bias in their professional activities, and they do not tolerate any forms of discrimination based on age; gender; race; ethnicity; national origin; religion; sexual orientation; disability; health conditions; or marital, domestic, or parental status. They are sensitive to cultural, individual, and role differences in serving, teaching, and studying groups of people with distinctive characteristics. In all of their work-related activities, sociologists acknowledge the rights of others to hold values, attitudes, and opinions that differ from their own.
Principle E: Social Responsibility
Sociologists are aware of their professional and scientific responsibility to the communities and societies in which they live and work. They apply and make public their knowledge in order to contribute to the public good. When undertaking research, they strive to advance the science of sociology and to serve the public good.

http://www.asanet.org/membership/code-ethics (Links to an external site.)

 

 

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONAlexis Rognholt

Alexis Rognholt 

YesterdayMay 2 at 1:50pm

Manage Discussion Entry

One of the most bizarre research studies revolves around Sigmond Freud and Emma Eckstein. Emma went to Freud for help with stomach ailments and an obsession with masterbation. Freud diagnosed her with a hysteria diagnosis and sent her to an ear, nose, and throat doctor that gave her a surgery that cauterized her nostrils. This procedure was done because there was believed to be a link between inappropriate sexual tendencies and a “nasogenital” condition. There were very negative repercussions of the surgery which did nothing to help the things Emma was experiencing and also led to various nasal bleeds through out her life. The surgeon further blamed his botched experiment on Emma as her bleeding issues were because of her own inappropriate sexual desires and not due to his inadequate study. This study was to analyze her hysteria actions diagnosed by Freud, and her sever mental health issues based off of what information of mental health research were out there at the time. The study happened because there was not reliable information on what constituted severe mental illness at the time, so Freud went off of what was believed at the time and in fact, destroyed Emmas life further based off of false research. This study is so strange, and very unethical, due to the fact that there was not enough foundational research to for one, make the accusations on Emma’s mental health, and two, perform a procedure that had not been fully studied prior to human trials. Though, this experiment did help Freud with many of his works in dreams and wishing, and fantasy and memory.

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONJacquline Panzano

Jacquline Panzano 

6:00amMay 3 at 6am

Manage Discussion Entry

When you are doing research, you need to make sure that you are following ethical guidelines.  Many cases in history did not follow those guidelines. “Operation Midnight Climax” is one of those research cases in history.

 

In the 1950s, the CIA sponsored a “mind-control” research project and named it “Operation Midnight Climax”.  The goal of this study was to see the effects of LSD on people.  Nonconsenting individuals in San Francisco and New York were called on from the CIA, from paid prostitutes to safe houses where they were slipped mind-altering substances like LSD.  They were monitored from behind two-way mirrors. This operation lasted a decade for unsuspecting victims. “But what was the real purpose behind such cloak and dagger research as Operation Midnight Climax? Undoubtedly, the Cold War was the driving force.  The CIA had been awakened by reports that the Soviet Union had made giant strides in developing chemical compounds for brainwashing. The CIA did not want to be left behind” (Segel, 2002).  The CIA wanted to find the right brainwashing drugs.

 

The reason I picked this study is because it was completely absurd.  It was extremely unethical because the individuals apart of the study had no idea what they were doing.  They had no idea that they were being laced with LSD.

 

References:

Segel, L. (2002). Operation midnight climax: Among the greatest medical conspiracies of all time would have to be listed the CIA’s odd experiments with LSD. Medical Post, 38(33), 27. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/228822580?accountid=32521

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

Flora Locker 

11:17amMay 3 at 11:17am

Manage Discussion Entry

When it comes to unethical research in social sciences one of the most interesting cases that stuck out to me was the 1983 UCLA Schizophrenia Experiment. The purpose of the study was to determine how and why those who have schizophrenia have relapse episodes caused by the disorder. However, in the study two doctors Dr. Gitlin and Dr. Nuechterlein were negligent in their efforts to determine whether or not it was actually possible to determine when psychosis would take place.

 

In the experiment Dr. Michael Gitlin and Dr. Keith H. Nuechterlein recruited hundreds of schizophrenics to take part in the experiment. Throughout the experiment a number of those who were participating in the study was taken off of their medication. The doctors did this with no thought out plan of how to actually protect the patients , or identifying what would be actually taking the study too far. There was no timeline of how long the participants should be off of their medication, and although the experiment was to determine if they could predict psychosis it should not have been done at the cost of deteriorating the mental well being of the subjects. As doctors they both have an obligation to do what is best for the patient, and to effectively monitor and make decisions that would protect their overall well being. Unfortunately, Gitlin and Nuechterlein failed to plan a suitable timeline in which their test subjects could return to their medication. They also failed to protect those participating during the times in which they were studied. As a result, their study drove one of the participants to suicide, as he jumped off a nine story building to his death.

 

The research they conducted was not only unethical as it compromised the mental and overall well being of the subjects, but the doctors also made unethical decisions throughout the study. Before the study took place, the doctors should have put together an effective plan on how to protect and effectively manage the subject medication. However, instead of doing their due diligence they failed the patients in what should have been an effort to help them in the long run, by pushing them to breaking points. Knowing that patients were suffering from hallucinations as a result of not having their medication, the doctors failed to act and actually treat the patients for the very reason the patients were trusting them to make decisions on their behalf.

 

References:

Hilts, P.J., (1994). Agency Faults a U.C.L.A. Study For Suffering of Mental Patients. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/10/us/agency-faults-a-ucla-study-for-suffering-of-mental-patients.html (Links to an external site.)

LaTimes. (1994).When the Patient Is Also an Experiment : Feds find fault with UCLA schizophrenia study Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-03-11-me-32605-story.html (Links to an external site.)

 Reply 

 

 

JoAnna Villanueva 

MondayApr 27 at 2:12pm

Manage Discussion Entry

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service beginning in 1932. The study examined untreated cases of latent syphilis in human subjects to determine the “natural course” of the disease. 400 African American males from Tuskegee, Alabama, who already had syphilis, were recruited for this study, along with a matched sample of 200 noninfected males. The subjects were not asked to provide their informed consent to participate in this project. Those infected with syphilis in the early 1930’s were given the standard treatment at that time, which consisted of administering “heavy metals.” However, when antibiotics became available in the 1940’s and it was evident that this treatment would improve a person’s chances for recovery, antibiotic treatment was withheld from the infected subjects, even though the researchers knew that if left untreated, the disease would definitely progress to increased disability and eventually early death. Research says that on several occasions, the US Public Health Service was against treatment. The experiment lasted more than 4 decades, until 1972, when government officials finally ended the experiment. By that time, 74 of the test subjects were still alive; while at least 28, possibly more than 100 died directly from advanced syphilis. There was a government investigation of the entire project that began 1972, and a review panel found the study to be ‘ethically unjustified’ and argued that penicillin should have been provided to the men. At no time in the course of this project were subjects asked to give their consent to participate in the study. They were not specifically told about what the study would include. In fact, those who participated did not even volunteer for the project. Instead, they were deceived into thinking they were receiving free treatment for a serious disease from the government.

The research methodology was unethical due to the subjects being unaware of the research. It also was unethical simply because no signed consent forms were required. The US Public Health service is responsible for deceiving the participants as well as the deaths that came from experimenting on the unaware subjects. Furthermore, they refused to properly treat the subjects even after a vaccine was created.

References

https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/34088_Chapter4.pdf (Links to an external site.)

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONMarnie Carroll

Marnie Carroll 

TuesdayApr 28 at 8:47pm

Manage Discussion Entry

JoAnna- really great overview here! And, here’s a thought: so, if knowledge gained in the past was based on an unethical study, is it wrong for current day scholars to avail of that information gained?

Best,
Dr. C

 Reply Reply to Comment

Michael Redmayne 

TuesdayApr 28 at 7:25am

Manage Discussion Entry

The “Onset of Stuttering” later named “The Monster Study” was a highly unethical psychological experiment performed in the late 1930s by the University of Iowa on 22 orphans. The experiment was to understand the phenomenon of stuttering in children and adults after many promising treatments failed. The experiment was to prove that stuttering was a learned behavior, and if the behavior can be learned it can be unlearned. The study performed the experiments by telling non-stuttering children that they did in fact stutter and stuttering children that they did not stutter. The experiment failed of the non-stutters labeled stutters two improved speech, two stayed the same, and two participants speech fell dramatically. The stutters labeled non-stutters the results where the same. Later studies showed, that children who have a significant stutter eventually grow out of the habit; with around one percent carry that habit into adulthood. As a result of the experiment many of the initial non-stutters developed severe and deep psychological and emotional problems that carried into adulthood.

What made this experiment unethical was that it was performed on orphans and they were not told the exact extent of the experiment. Any experiment needs the complete consent of the participants. Parents can give consent on behalf of their child but because this experiment was done on orphans, no consent was given. the true nature of the experiment was also kept secret from the children. The children were only told that they were to be given speech therapy. The orphans began a lawsuit against the State of Iowa and the University of Iowa and is now the subject of a multi-million dollar lawsuit ant the basis of unethical studies.

References:

Reynolds G. March 16, 2013 The Stuttering Doctor’s ‘Monster Study” The New York Times Magazine retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/magazine/the-stuttering-doctor-s-monster-study.html (Links to an external site.)

 Reply Reply to Comment

Marnie Carroll 

TuesdayApr 28 at 8:47pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Michael– great example of an ethical issue in research. You explain the nuances well regarding the conflicts that were inherent in this research design and implementation. Really good work.

So, what exactly is an institutional review board (IRB) and what is their role in terms of research and ethics?

Best regards,
Dr. Marnie E. Carroll

 Reply Reply to Comment

Tasha Robinson 

TuesdayApr 28 at 12:42pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Henrietta Lacks was an African American woman who in 1951 visited John Hopkins Hospital due to vaginal bleeding.  A renowned doctor by the name of Dr. Howard Jones discovered upon examination of Henrietta a large malignant tumor on her cervix. At the time radium treatment was the best option to treat cervical cancer so Henrietta began treatment and during this time another doctor by the name of George Grey collected samples during a biopsy of Henrietta’s cervical tissues. Dr. Grey was a well-known researcher in the cancer field and always collected samples from his patients but the cells collected never lived. Henrietta’s were different and proved to be immortal. The problem is no one asked Henrietta’s permission to use her cells and her family knew nothing for 25 years.  Scientists studied the family under the impression of wanting to “test” them for cancer while the medical industry profited immensely from Ms. Lacks cells which they named HeLa cells. Her cells have been used in the development of the polio vaccine and studied for leukemia, AIDS, and other viruses.

The problem is that in 1951 we were in the heart of the Jim Crow era. Ms. Lacks was seen in the segregated ward of the hospital and while she did receive care and treatment it wasn’t uncommon back then for black people to be treated as second and third-class citizens. Lacks was sent home many times during her cancer treatment until she finally put her foot down and demanded they keep her at the hospital but by that time it was too late.  While Dr. Grey never profited off of the cells because he gave them out freely to the medical community others down the line did. The family not knowing for 25 years of the contribution Henrietta made to science is unethical and wrong and the family should have been notified when they first discovered the cells were different. After Henrietta died at the age of 30 in 1951 the family was used under the guise of being tested for cancer and never receiving any results from the test. We have a lack of consent, lack of transparency, and a lack of moral obligation to the family.

Author Rebekka Skloot wrote a book about Henrietta entitled The Immortal Life of Henrietta Slacks. Ms. Skloot did an interview about her book and her interactions with Henrietta’s daughter Deborah which can be found at https://www.npr.org/transcripts/123232331.  (Links to an external site.)

References:

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/123232331 (Links to an external site.)

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/importance-of-hela-cells.html (Links to an external site.)

 Reply Reply to Comment

Marnie Carroll 

Tasha, excellent points about ethics in research. It is a tricky topic in some ways and you covered some very relevant points of concern.

 

Class, as we think about research ethics more, we also need to think about the soundness of research more generally.

 

Not every source is suitable for use in a scholarly research paper such as your Final Project. When writing a scholarly research paper, using credible, reliable, and valid resources shows quality in your work as well. For example, it would not be appropriate to use a resource written by an author who is not an expert in the field, when information is biased, or when the information about the data gathering process is missing. In addition, outdated resources are typically not appropriate, unless they are original works.

 

Class, think about the peer-reviewed journal articles you have read thus far. Consider the degree of credibility, reliability, and validity and think about how and why peer-review is a system intended to help increase these aspects of scholarly material that is published.

 

Class, what are your thoughts on the quality of sources you are thinking about for your final work?

 

Best,

Dr. C

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

Jennie Garza 

TuesdayApr 28 at 1:58pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Dr. Lauretta Bender was a child neuropsychiatrist who spent the 1930’s-1960’s conducting multiple experiments on electroshock therapy on children who had schizophrenia and autism. According to Dr. Hon Breeding (2014), Bender studies injected children as young as three years old with ECT, tranquilizers such as Thorazine. Hallucinogens such as LSD and psychoactive drugs. She even admitted to shocking 20 children under the age of three years old. She treated an estimated 500 children at Bellelvue Hospital in New York. She also stated that electroshocks and drugs were effective and safe. The thought of the benefits of electroshock and drugs was to help autistic children by providing psychedelic experiments that would help perceptual growth and decrease delays. She mentally scarred children who received her treatments, and many were dragged down the hospital hallways crying to get treatments. Ted Chabaskinski was a six-year-old boy who was one of the participants in Dr. Bender’s experiment. Due to the electroshock, he lost some of his memories, such as not being able to remember his best friend, who his teachers were, or his way around his neighborhood. The treatments did not just affect them mentally but physically, as well. The electroshock was an excruciating procedure on the children and left them scarred. Some of the children who received the electroshock therapy attempted suicide because they were afraid of dying and wanted to end it quicker instead of dragging it out with the numerous electroshock therapies. The shocks lasted30 to 60 seconds but caused life-threatening complications such as apnea and cardiac arrest. Children would also become unconscious for several minutes after the shocks. Death was a possible side effect of getting the electroshock therapy, which during one of the studies of 95 participants, one child died during the electroshock therapy. Memory loss and brain damage were determined to be a typical result of electroshock (Breeding, 2014).

 

Dr. Lauretta Bender’s experiments were unethical because she conducted electroshock therapy on children’s brains, causing permeant brain damage and memory loss. Her procedures even traumatized the children mentally, emotionally, and physically. Breeding mentioned that some of the children attempted suicide, including a 9-year old boy who was afraid to continue getting the treatments because he thought it was going to kill him. He wanted to take his own life so it could be quick instead of prolonging his death. Bender’s experiments caused other studies to be done concerning suicides linked to electroshock therapy. Children do not comprehend complicated stuff such as electroshock therapy and do not understand why they must do the sessions. Children did not get a voice on what happens to them and the permeant effects that were caused by the shocks.

 

Breeding, J. (2014, February 11). Electroshocking Children: Why It Should Be Stopped. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/02/electroshocking-children-stopped/

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

Haley Hill 

TuesdayApr 28 at 3:38pm

Manage Discussion Entry

A crazy example of a violation of good ethnical conduct in research in the social sciences is the Facebook emotion study, which breached ethical guidelines. I use this example because Facebook is one of the longest social media accounts that consume millions of people’s lives. It is a great tool with keeping connections to long lost friends as well as sharing information.

In 2012, Facebook and Cornell University conducted an experiment called the Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. This study allowed Facebook researchers to manipulate Facebook user’s news feeds (nearly 700,000) to display differing amounts of positive and negative posts from the people they followed in order to determine whether their succeeding posts were affected by the positivity or negativity of the different posts that were viewed (Flick, 2016). The purpose of this study was to determine if the more positive or negative posts read, would change users emotional state, referred to as ‘emotional contagion’. Facebook had allowed researchers to access a significant amount of data which was produced by manipulating users through computerized determination of positive and negative levels.

The main ethical breach made was that Facebook users did not give their consent to the study, and rather Facebook researchers collecting the data did not seek explicit informed consent from anyone. I can see where Facebook and the Cornell researchers were trying to go with their study and if done ethically, could have actually have some poise to it. They wanted to produce the understanding of the impact of social media on society. Although manipulating people to experiment and use that form of study to conduct analysis in identifying positive and negative posts was unethically correct. The question of how the researchers would have been able to determine accurate data if their participants knew what was going on is a liable question; however, they could of let social media know a research study was going to be conducted and users could have selected their consent if they wanted to be a part of it. With that poll given, a random sampling could have been done, giving people the reassurance that they may or may not be included into the study and would essential act as normal. “A company should state up front if they are going to be, for example, using user data for purposes other than as communication between users, and, as accurately as possible, what sorts of outcomes this use may have” (Flick, 2016, pp. 20). Facebook overall failed to seek ethical oversight despite ostensibly manipulating peoples’ emotions.

Flick, C. (2016). Informed consent and the Facebook emotional manipulation study. Research Ethics12(1), 14–28. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016115599568 (Links to an external site.)

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

Doretha Hall 

WednesdayApr 29 at 8:24am

Manage Discussion Entry

WEEK 4 DISCUSSION 2

Harry Harlow’s The Pit of Despair – An unethical experiment

Harry Harlow is an American psychologist.  Most of his work was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  He is best known for his experiments with rhesus monkeys to study the effects of abandonment, separation, and isolation. The monkeys were used to learn about clinical depression and isolation.  After the monkeys bonded with their mothers, he separated them by putting them into a pit for one year. In some instances, the monkeys weren’t in the pit for a full year but being frequently isolated from other monkeys.   He collected a group of monkeys ranging from three months to three years old to test partial isolation.  After being isolated for three months, one of six monkeys were released five days later; the monkey died because it refused to eat.  The monkeys were deprived maternally; they showed no affection and were almost destroyed socially.  In another experiment, Harlow raised monkeys from birth and put them in single chambers. Three groups of newborn monkeys were isolated in individual chambers for 3, 6, and 12 months to test total isolation. The monkeys were depressed, suffered complete maternal separation, and they became aggressive and hostile. From this experiment, Harlow stated that “no monkeys died during isolation; they usually went into a state of emotional shock, characterized by autistic self-clutching and rocking” (Reading Between The Dunes, 2015). He also used a rape rack to breed monkeys.  Females were placed on the rack, and when they refused to mate, Harlow would have them inseminated. He found that the isolated mothers would kill their infants by chewing off fingers and toes or crushing the infants’ heads with their teeth. The study’s findings are that total and semi-isolation prove that the monkeys are reduced to the social-emotional level in which the primary social responsiveness is fear and hostility.

The research study was testing the effects of abandonment, separation, and isolation.  Harlow was interested in how abandonment, loneliness and stress affected humans, so he decided to use rhesus monkeys in his experiment because he knew he could not use humans for his research.

 

The experiment was unethical because it is cruelty to animals, which is animal abuse.  The study caused the monkeys to die, to become aggressive when they were isolated over some time.

 

Reading Between The Dunes. (2015, January 05). Manic Monday: Harlow’s Pit of Despair, the Rape Rack and Iron Maidens.  https://neuravinci.com/2015/01/05/manic-monday-harlows-pit-of-despair-the-rape-rack-and-iron-maidens/ (Links to an external site.)

Marnie Carroll 

ThursdayApr 30 at 4:16pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Doretha –  this is an apt example and good explanation.

And, here are a few more questions  –

Do you feel that inmates are a “vulnerable population” as many codes of ethics state?

Universities require students to meet ethical codes in doing major research projects such as theses. What are some research requirements Ashford has in place?

Do you think that researchers are doing things today that might be deemed wrong in years to come? Will morals change again?

Have we ever actually learned useful information from unethical experiments?

Are our examples illustrations of why social scientists can not conduct the same types of experiments as, say, those in the hard science who work in laboratory settings? When human beings are what we are studying, is it more difficult to do traditional experimental methods?

What might be the long term effects on the subjects of this research?

Best regards,

Dr. Marnie E. Carroll

 Reply Reply to Comment

Nicole Blount 

WednesdayApr 29 at 5:06pm

Manage Discussion Entry

The Monkey Drug Trials was a research experiment conducted in 1969.

An unethical experiment was conducted to study the effects of drug addiction using animals.

The mistreatment of animals is illegal and a violation of good ethical conduct.

The purpose of the experiment was to

The first step in this experiment was to teach the monkeys how to inject drugs into their body.

The drugs used were morphine alcohol, cocaine, codeine, and a mixture of amphetamines. The monkeys were left with a large number of drugs to use when they wanted to inject themselves.

The results of this experiment were drug addiction, drug overdoses, and how crazed the monkeys became after they had exceeded over 12 ounces of the drugs in a 24 hour period.

Some of the monkeys attempted to escape from their cages and broke limbs in the process. (PMC, 2012).

I believe any cruel treatment of animals is unethical.

References

 

https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info/unethical-experiements-psychology/ (Links to an external site.)

The Standardising Of Drugs By Experiments On Animals. (1900). The British Medical Journal2(2068), 447.

 

 Reply Reply to Comment

Christina Taylor 

Christina Taylor

April 30, 2020

Week 4 discussion 2

Ethical Research in the Social Sciences

Violation of good ethical conduct in research in the social sciences

Agent Orange

  • Agent Orange Experiments
  • Agent Orange was a tactical herbicide used by the U.S. military from 1962 to 1975, named for the orange band around the storage barrel. The military sprayed millions of gallons of Agent Orange and other tactical herbicides on trees and vegetation during the Vietnam War.

The idea and use of agent orange came from Operation Ranch Hand During the Vietnam War, the U.S military engaged in an aggressive program of chemical warfare codenamed Operation Ranch Hand. From 1961 to 1971, the U.S. military sprayed a range of herbicides across more than 4.5 million acres of Vietnam to destroy the forest cover and food crops used by enemy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. U.S. aircraft were deployed to douse roads, rivers, canals, rice paddies and farmland with powerful mixtures of herbicides. During this process, crops and water sources used by the non-combatant native population of South Vietnam were also hit. In all, American forces used more than 20 million gallons of herbicides in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia during the years of Operation Ranch Hand. Herbicides were also sprayed from trucks and hand-sprayers around U.S. military bases. The main purposes were the destruction of Vietnam territory which led to the massive environmental devastation of the U.S. defoliation program in Vietnam, that nation has reported that some 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange. In addition, Vietnam claims half a million children have been born with serious birth defects, while as many 2 million people are suffering from cancer or other illness caused by Agent Orange (U.S. Departments of Veterans Affairs, 2015Exposure to Agent Orange is associated with many diseases. The diseases now on the VA’s Agent Orange list are ischemic heart disease, lung and trachea cancers, prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s Disease, type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, AL amyloidosis, chronic B-cell leukemia, chloracne, early-onset peripheral artery disease. If you were exposed to Agent Orange during your military service, you may qualify for VA disability benefits. Which many received such as my father who was a Vietnam vet who was part of the study and later diagnosed with diabetes and other ailments. He also died still with herbicide/agent orange still in his body decades later.

  • Prisoners, like people of color, have often been the unwilling objects of evil experiments. From 1965 to 1966, Dr. Albert Kligman, funded by Dow Chemical, Johnson & Johnson, and the U.S. Army, conducted what was deemed “dermatological research” on approximately 75 prisoners. What was actually being studied was the effects of Agent Orange on humans. Prisoners were injected with dioxin (a toxic byproduct of Agent Orange) 468 times the amount the study originally called for. The results were prisoners with volcanic eruptions of chloracne (severe acne combined with blackheads, cysts, pustules) on the face, armpits, and groin. Long after the experiments ended, prisoners continued to suffer from the effects of the exposure. Dr. Kligman, apparently very enthusiastic about the study, was quoted as saying, “All I saw before me were acres of skin… It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time.” Kligman went on to become the doctor behind Retin-A, a major treatment for acne (Schwartz., 2014).

After you have explained the experiment and its procedure, then provide an argument that displays why this research methodology was unethical. 

  • Agent Orange was said to be used to destroy the guerrillas of cover and cut their food supply. But the modus-operandi was unethical. Unethical because, it did not affect the enemy, but more the innocent civilians. And destroyed land and vital crops needed for human survival.
  • In addition, 58,000 Americans and 2 to 3 million Vietnamese, many of them civilians, were killed in the war. Untold numbers were wounded. Many US veterans of the war suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. More US Vietnam War vets have committed suicide than died in the war. However, those numbers do not begin to tell the complete story of the war. Approximately 3 million Vietnamese and thousands of US and allied soldiers were exposed to Agent Orange/dioxin. Those exposed to Agent Orange/dioxin often have children and grandchildren born with serious illnesses and disabilities. There is a virtual unanimity of opinion within the international scientific community that exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin caused some forms of cancers, reproductive abnormalities, immune and endocrine deficiencies, and nervous system damage. Second- and third-generation victims continue to be born in Vietnam, as well as to US veterans and Vietnamese Americans in the United States. For many of them and their progeny, the suffering continues (U.S. Departments of Veterans Affairs, 2015).
  • I have not found in my recent research that any reciprocity or aid has yet been granted except to select veterans that qualify and there are a few bills still in progress for victims of agent orange in Vietnam and in the U.S. H.R. 334, the Victims of Agent Orange bill has been introduced but not yet passed.

References

History channel. (2019). Agent orange. Retrieved from History: https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange-1

Schwartz.L. (2014). 10 of the most evil medical experiments in history. Retrieved from https://www.salon.com/2014/09/04/10_of_the_most_evil_medical_experiments_in_history_partner/

U.S. Departments of Veterans Affairs. (2015). Facts About Herbicides. Retrieved from Public Health: https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/basics.asp

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONMarnie Carroll

Marnie Carroll 

YesterdayMay 2 at 5:46pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Christina,

Your research study was a great example of unethical research practices. And – in terms of vulnerable groups such as inmates, the IRB protects the rights and welfare of all humans, regardless of their situations (Landrum, 2012). Similarly, Landrum discusses a study conducted on orphan children, and I think as in your case, these children were taken advantage of because of their circumstance. Certain groups, like children are provided additional protections and must have parental consent in order to participate in research studies (Landrum, 2012). These children were not made aware of the potential risks of the study and many of them reported being affected by it many years later.

 

References:

Landrum, R.E. (2012). Research and writing in the social sciences. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

 

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

Akayla Salido 

ThursdayApr 30 at 9:18pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Week 4 Discussion 2

In 1967, first-year teacher Ron Jones, was trying to answer a question that we still have to this day “how did the holocaust happen?”. To answer this question for his sophomore social studies class, Mr. Jones decided to experiment with how many “followers” he could get within a few days. He told the students about the experiment, and changed his demeanor to be sterner, and made a new set of rules for his classroom (Aron, 2017). He figured the experiment would end there, but when he entered his classroom the next day, all the students greeted him in unison, as set by his rules the day before. Mr. Jones implemented a Nazi-like hand gesture, standing to ask questions, and worked on projects about ways to eliminate democracy (Aron, 2017). This teacher basically coerced his students into being his followers, with him being the Hitler leader. There was an implemented logo “Strength Through Discipline” that the students made banners saying. Another major point was that Mr. Jones told the students that if the went along with the experiment, they would get an “A”, and if they tried to overthrow him in any way, they would receive an “F’. There were endless rules and protocols for these students within this teacher experiment, and they even had to follow the rules at home (Aron, 2017). This article mentioned “But as a simulation of the normalization of fascism — the pleasure of membership, the creeping thrill of exclusion, and the comfort of discipline and rules — the experiment was unquestionably a success” (para. 12). This experiment proved to be ethically wrong as he went out of the realm of what a teacher can do. Mr. Jones started a cult within a matter of four days. Students that were not even his were writing the logo that their friends had shared and were even following all of the rules that the teacher had set in other classrooms. The point was proven as to how easily people are persuaded to follow, but many students were terrified by the end of its course.

Reference

Aron, N. R. (2017). “This 1967 Classroom experiment proved how easy it was for Americans to become Nazis”. Retrieved from https://timeline.com/this-1967-classroom-experiment-proved-how-easy-it-was-for-americans-to-become-nazis-ab63cedaf7dd

 Reply Reply to Comment

 

COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONAshley Rose Daga

Ashley Rose Daga 

FridayMay 1 at 6:51pm

Manage Discussion Entry

In 1968, Ms. Jane Elliot, a school teacher, performed an exercise known as the ‘Blue Eyes – Brown Eyes.’  It was conducted on young third grade children facing racial prejudice within society.  This was accomplished the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King.  I believe this was a violation of ethics as the experiment, research, or survey and the questions of emotional discomfort was a factor.  The concept behind this exercise was to see how the young children would treat each other based on the color of their eyes.  The experiment focused on the stereotypes or judgement of someone based on the color of their skin and how other children reacted.  The teacher informed students that those who are superior are smarter for having brown eyes and the minority were the children with blue eyes.

As I stated the population for this exercise was on young third grade children, who was impressionable and at times cannot hide their emotions when put into a situation out of their norm.  Their ages ranged from 8-10, all white, middle class children, had different color eyes, hair, male/female and some who were glasses.  Many of these children grew up together and new each other for many years.  But with Ms. Elliot stating those with brown eyes are better than others with blue eyes, she wanted to see if they would eventually turn against each other or migrate towards kids who looked similar.  Some children began to fight each other on the playground, calling each other names, which was first started by the colors of their eyes.  The roles were eventually reversed and the children were once the ‘minority’ with no rights or say-so, were now the dominate power and treating the other children with different colored eyes the same way they were being treated.

I would like to think when looking at the research that Ms. Elliott conducted for the third grades students back in 1968, there may have been some of the ways that she conducted the research that was questionable or unethical in the eyes of the public. The goal was to see how the children acted like through ‘Power’ and through ‘Oppression’ between the blue eye and brown eye children. The thought of putting the young children in a state of discomfort and power by testing their emotions (only for a short time and then the roles were changed), with hopes to have the children open their eyes on the inequalities of racial prejudice. This research focused on how the people from all colors and ages displayed the unfortunate prejudice and discrimination within today’s society.

Reference

Ellliott, J. (N.D.). Brown eyes and blue eyes Racism experiment Children Session. Retrieve from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGvoXeXCoUY (Links to an external site.)

Homework On Time
Calculate the Price of your PAPER Now
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Choose Us

Top quality papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional academic writers

We have hired a team of professional writers experienced in academic and business writing. Most of them are native speakers and PhD holders able to take care of any assignment you need help with.

Free revisions

If you feel that we missed something, send the order for a free revision. You will have 10 days to send the order for revision after you receive the final paper. You can either do it on your own after signing in to your personal account or by contacting our support.

On-time delivery

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & confidential

We use several checkers to make sure that all papers you receive are plagiarism-free. Our editors carefully go through all in-text citations. We also promise full confidentiality in all our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

You are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper. Our academic experts will gladly help you with essays, case studies, research papers and other assignments.

Admissions

Admission help & business writing

You can be positive that we will be here 24/7 to help you get accepted to the Master’s program at the TOP-universities or help you get a well-paid position.

Reviews

Editing your paper

Our academic writers and editors will help you submit a well-structured and organized paper just on time. We will ensure that your final paper is of the highest quality and absolutely free of mistakes.

Reviews

Revising your paper

Our academic writers and editors will help you with unlimited number of revisions in case you need any customization of your academic papers