1.) In the Belmont Report, there are three basic ethical principles: Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. Do you think there could be any other ethical principles added on or do you think this sums it up perfectly? Why or why not?
2.) An IRB dictates whether or not an experiment can/should be conducted on human subjects. The IRB bases its decision on the following criteria:
(1) Risks to subjects are minimized: . . .
(2) Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. . .
(3) Selection of subjects is equitable
(4) Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject
(5) Informed consent will be appropriately documented . . .
(6) When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.
(7) When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.
Do you believe that these standards are too limiting for scientists/researchers in how creative they can be while conducting their studies? Why or why not?
1.) With all the laws restricting research of some kinds, where will research go in the future? What will become of it?
2.) In case number 5, James Neel bought over 2,000 doses of the Edmonson B vaccine to treat the Yanomami tribe. The medicine was ineffective, but he did try to treat and heal the tribe. Do you think he Neel’s intentions were beneficial for the tribe, even though there was a more effective available medicine at a higher price?
3.) In the case about the professor paying different amounts to researchers, what could she have done differently to be more fair to everyone who was involved?