When doing research involving human subjects researchers are required to have their proposals reviewed and approved by an Institutional Research Board (sometimes this is named differently). Why might this not be sufficient to address ethical issues with the research? reference Stanford Prison Experiments© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 8:16 am ad1c9bdddf
When proposals are presented to an Institutional Research Board the proposals contain the objectives of the study, the methodology, and the expected benefits of the experiments. The methodology is described in summarized terms so that the review board does perceive the unethical issues in the research. The benefits of the study are grossly highlighted. The benefits are exaggerated in such a manner that the experiments will bring succor to the entire society (b). The proposal is prepared in such a manner that the board cannot perceive the unethical aspects of the experiment. For example, the proposal describes that twins will be separated after birth. What the proposal does not mention is that every aspect of each of the twin's environment will be controlled by the experimenter. The proposals inflate the claims of benefits. For example when experiments were carried out on large number of people by German Nazis in concentration camp, the proposals claimed that medical experimentation will benefit mankind and will immediately help German soldiers during battles.
The key reasons why Institutional Research Board reviews are not sufficient is that actual experimentation goes far beyond what has been mentioned in the proposals. Once the experiment starts it takes a life of ...
This solution explains how reviewing and approving research involving human subjects does not make them ethical . The sources used are also included in the solution.