4 one page evaluations for 4 papers due in 12 hours.

10/12/12

OP-ED 2012

What would you do if someone were to infect you with a deadly disease without your knowledge or permission for them doing so? This was the case in the example of the Guatemala Syphilis Experiment, which showed to us the lack of common rules among research by the IRB and the REB. It is clear that there needs to be a set rule of guidelines for researchers in order to protect the participant’s rights to life and privacy. In order to regulate the common rules I agree 100% that researchers should have their studies reviewed before and after their studies are done. If researchers were to have complete freedom to study the way they wanted to without review there is guarantee that people rights to privacy would be evoked. A simple way to know whether or not the research being implemented is positive for society is to simply ask the question if anyone’s rights are being imposed on when conducting the experiment, if so it should not be done.

In Case four we hear from a researcher that suggests, "But as long as we have these kinds of boards that review every proposal, it's going to be challenging to make significant changes―. It’s hard to believe that because of having ones research reviewed for imposing on human rights would make it impossible to make progress. It seems to me that we have made great discovery’s in the past and continue to progress without having to invade others privacy. If researches had the ability to conduct any survey as they please it would probably end up setting the research program back, because why would people truest an experiment that hasn't been review?

It’s easy to see how from a researchers point of view their experiment will be for the greater good no matter what the sacrifice is being made, however, that’s why there is a need for these type of boards who think about the outcome for both parties, not willing to sacrifice another’s happiness for the sake of research. For example, in the case of the Yanomami “Neel decided to do his research without first gaining Yanomami permission. And he decided, on his own, what the reciprocal benefits of his research would be―. Turns out that the Yanomami felt taken advantage of and don’t even acknowledge Neel in ever helping them at all. Neel felt like he had the complete freedom to conduct his research however he wanted, having boards to review these studies before they are done prevents people from feeling taken advantage of.

In conclusion, the IRB and REB have the right to make common rules and should enforce them rightfully. If researches had the complete freedom to conduct any study they wanted it would actually set back the research program, creating a bad image. The boards should continue the requirement of review over all studies and should not let any studies role out without prior review before and after the study has been done. Sticking to the “Belmont Report― is best, to ensure that people have their privacy and justice when needed, which hopefully there isn't going to be need of justice when the rules are enforced.

Letter C, Page 1