Learning Journal 19

This past week in class we talked about the IRB and some examples in history about what sparked its creation. I thought the topic that we discussed as a group was interesting. My guess is that it is a pretty debated topic and pretty personal. I would think that those who had the strongest feelings toward it would be those actually knew someone who was involved in one of the studies. What we discussed was whether it was justified for medical research to withhold information from its subjects to develop a better understanding of what they were looking into. Or very simply, the idea of progressing the development and understanding of something by abusing or misinforming a few for the benefit of everyone else. For most, the answer is no. Most people view the sanctity of the individual as more important than the progression of understanding. Defenders of this topic would argue that you win some and lose some, but when you win it is a big benefit to the rest of society that can be seen as worth the risk. These people are known as 'The Common Gooders'. An example of this in the animal kingdom is:
In a striking example of the evolutionary benefits of altruism, researchers have found a species of ants that sends a few workers out each evening on a suicide mission to ensure the continued survival of the colony. The tiny ant Forelius pusillus, which makes its home in sugar cane fields in Brazil, makes a nightly ritual of covering the entrance to its nest with sand. To be sure that the entrance is sealed shut tightly, a few ants remain outside each evening to finish kicking sand over the hole. Those ants, stuck outside in the cold and the wind, die during the night.
This is the idea of sacrificing for the betterment of everyone else.
I guess the big difference and problem between this and the study we learned about is that those in the study were misinformed of what they had and not told that there were alternatives. In the case of the ants, I am guessing that those who left the nest to cover the hole volunteered...maybe, or they could have possibly been chosen by the rest of the colony.
Whatever the reason, is the loss of a few worth the benefit of many? It is a hard topic to debate. Its also hard to comprehend until you are chosen as a test subject. I know that many people today are grateful for the drugs and cures that have been developed. What some do not know is how these drugs were obtained or how much more was learned about them because of the studies. Those who would see the mistakes of the past as beneficial and worth it the most are those who are in current need of a drug that was obtained through not so legitimate means. This group of people would probably be more happy that their own life was being saved because of the research and understanding from the mistakes of others than they would be to undue the past and fix those wrongs.
All that this comes down to is..... thank goodness there is an IRB that gets to determine what is ethical and not ethical now a days. Leave the questions up to them and things will progress in a way that everyone can agree with, even if new drugs or research could be uncovered through unethical means. This is the group through whom each of our prospective projects will pass through, in hopes of being able to study our desired topic. I don't think that most of us will have any trouble with our projects because we will not be withholding information from our subjects or misinforming them!