Discussion Forum Sports Science A+ work, no plagarism

FORUM 8A

**Initial Response: Initial responses should be no less than 150 words in length not including your reference(s) and supported by at least one reference (aside from the textbook). Initial responses are due no later than 11:55 p.m. ET on Wednesday, Day 3 of each week. This allows time for other students to respond to your initial response. Please be aware that just “cutting and pasting” sections of articles (in lieu of writing an original initial post) is not acceptable and will negatively impact your grade.

In 2017, opioid deaths exceeded the number of people who died in car accidents reducing the average life expectancy age for the USA. Purdue Pharma benefited financially from the sale of OxyContin (an addictive opioid pain medication) and heavily marketed it mainly when profits slumped. Now the state of Massachusetts is suing Purdue Pharma for the harm they have inflicted on the state and its citizens. Was Purdue Pharma’s conduct ethical?

Ethical considerations take high priority in research. Find an example of unethical research and present it in this forum discussion.  Why is it unethical? What standard has it violated?

**Peer Responses: Students are required to respond to at least two (2) other student’s initial postings (and the instructor) with significant comments that have substance. Peer responses are due no later than 11:55 p.m. ET on Sunday, Day 7 of each week. All peer responses must be substantial and significant and should be no less than 75 words in. If possible, one of the responses to another’s work should be from an opposing viewpoint. Your response to your peer's work should be engaging and informative with good substance (just stating “I agree…” is not acceptable). Your responses should contribute in a meaningful way to helping advance our knowledge of the topics the class explores. Your responses to another’s work should be posted as a sub-thread to the student’s original posting of whom you are commenting.

Respond to Peer JJ

I particularly like the topic of this week’s forum post.  Ethics in research tends to remind me of the case of Little Albert, a case study done on phobias and conditioned response.  This was an experiment that intended to further the work of Pavlov and his research with his dog, and was performed in the 20s on an 11 month old child, where he was introduced to several objects (mice, bunnies, rats, etc.) and his response to these objects were recorded.  He did not initially display any fear, but then the researchers introduced him to the rat several times accompanied by a loud noise, which made the kid cry.  After awhile, he began to associate the rat with the loud noise and began to cry and try to crawl away every time he saw the rat.  Gradually, he began to associate this fear with other furry objects, such as bunnies, fur coats, and even a faux Santa Claus beard, and he would cry each time these objects were introduced as well.  

Several years ago, I was in an introduction to psychology class, and this was one of the experiments that was discussed.  I find it fascinating that the mind can be programmed like this.  It made me realize that most sports programs condition kids to think of running as a punishment.  If you were involved in sports in school, more often than not, when you made a mistake in practice or showed up late, you were running laps.  While I still don’t love to run, I’ve made an effort to find ways to enjoy running more since making that connection.  

Resources

Allen, R., Reber, A. & Reber, E.  (2009).  Little Albert.  The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.  Retrieved from  https://search-credoreference-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/content/entry/penguinpsyc/little_albert/0

Respond to Peer TC

Good Afternoon Professor and Classmates,

Answering the initial question, is Purdue Pharma conduct unethical? I personally believe that this could have gone either way, after researching the on-going events this statement stood out. "Purdue has pointed out that its products were approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration and that doctors were prescribing them to address patient pain" (Allyn, 2019). On the other hand, many have refuted that the organization was well aware of the addicting side effects, which  Pharma has agreed to a settlement. That being said, what  about the doctors who prescribed it multiple times?

After conducting additional research, I found another article "Ethics of genetic testing and  that speaks on the ethics of genetic test and  gene doping.  Genetic testing been used in sports and exercise to advanced and curtail human performance and anatomy.  While, gene doping has been used in clinical and controlled trials to removed certain parts of genetic make up that contributed to various diseases. The overall practice of both are ethical when controlled and certified medical practitioner are present to monitor the effects throughout the whole process. It becomes unethical when alternatives means are used to conduct either unsupervised trials and when tried on adolescents (which the AMA has deemed unethical). The side effects documented have revealed unwanted symptoms and serious effects to the immune system. Overall if this process is used in the correct manner there's no violation, but when used otherwise it violates Ethical Research in Human Studies.  Look forward to everyone's responses.

Best Regards

Travis

References

Allyn, Bobby. (2019). Purdue Pharma, Accused of Fueling Opoid Crisis, Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy . National. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761107097/purdue-pharma-accused-of-fueling-opioid-crisis-files-for-chapter-11 

Vlahovich, Nicole. Ethics of genetic testing and research in sport: a position statement from the Australian Institute of Sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine. Retrieved from https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/1/5