Overall, scientific research is rightly described as one of the major factors that contribute to social progress, especially the improvement of living conditions; nevertheless, very often, people overlook the pitfalls which are often associated with this process. Certainly, a modern person will find it very difficult to imagine an experiment during which a patient can be deliberately infected with a dangerous disease, even if in this way, one can benefit the entire community.
The very idea may seem appalling. Nevertheless, there are cases suggesting that the rights of subjects can be infringed upon during various experiments. Overall, it is necessary to make sure that scientific studies do not pose a threat to the welfare of the participants. This is the main objective that should be attained. Scholars should be allowed to choose the research methods that they find suitable, provided that these methods do not imperil the life, health, or dignity of an individual who takes part in the study.
In their turn, the regulations should be aimed at protecting the life, health, and privacy of subjects who put trust in the integrity of researchers. Furthermore, scholars should be asked to explain how exactly their findings can be used by the community. These are the main issues that should be discussed in greater detail.
It is often argued that the major task of researchers is to bring benefits to society, and this goal is definitely worth achieving. Nevertheless, this objective has often been used as a pretext that can justify some of the most atrocious experiments in the history of science. For example, one can certainly speak about the studies conducted in Guatemala. It should be mentioned that in the course of these experiments, patients were infected with syphilis and other venereal diseases (Hinman 172).
In this way, researchers attempted to test the efficiency of penicillin (Hinman 172). The scientists, who carried out this study, could say that their findings might have benefited a great number of people. Nevertheless, this justification is hardly acceptable nowadays because it can lead to the dehumanization of an individual. In turn, some of the nutritional studies led to the starvation of people who could not afford food (Weber).
To a great extent, this example demonstrates that the emphasis on the benefits of scientific research can result in significant ethical flaws. Therefore, much attention should be paid to the minimization of harm to the patients or any other people who take part in empirical studies. This is one of the pitfalls that should be avoided.
Furthermore, new regulations are supposed to protect the dignity of people who agree to work with scientists. For instance, in the past, the subjects of psychological studies could be often asked to commit acts of violence (Essig). Furthermore, researchers should be sensitive to the cultural heritage of people (Ormsby).
This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about archeological excavations, which can eventually lead to the conflicts between scientists and communities (Ormsby). This issue should be addressed in the regulations. One should keep in mind that the subjects of scientific research may have a set of values and worldviews that should not be disregarded by scholars.
Certainly, it is critical to remember about the flaws of bureaucratic procedures which significantly slow down the process of scientific research. There are various situations when scholars are not allowed to implement their studies when there are typos in the documents which they provide to internal review boards (Smith).
Such artificial obstacles are not related to the protection of the subjects’ rights. This is another risk that should not be overlooked. Instead, these organizations should pay more attention to the tangible benefits that a study can bring to the community. These are the main details that can be singled out.
On the whole, this discussion shows the regulations, which govern the work of researchers should emphasize the safety and dignity of subjects as the top priority for researchers. Nevertheless, it is critical to remember that the work of scientists should not be hindered by bureaucratic obstacles which only prevent scientists from doing their work properly. Hopefully, modern regulators will be able to resolve this problem effectively. These are the main aspects that can be distinguished.
Works Cited
Essig, Laurie. “The IRB and the Future of Fieldwork.” Chronicle Of Higher Education. CHE., 2011. Web.
Hinman, Lawrence. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory, New York: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Ormsby, Mary. “Studying Old Bones-Preservation or Perversion?” The Star. The Star, 2013. Web.
Smith, Mitch. “Behind Closed Doors.” Inside Higher Education. IHE., 2012. Web.
Weber, Bob. “Subject to Aboriginal experiements”. The Vancouver Sun. VC., 2013. Web.