Oumou Sow
Asef Faiyaj
Hameed Gado
Joshua Colon
Romesha Lewis
Ethical Practices in Science Experiments
Introduction
In the scientific world many scientists may cross the line between ethical and moral experimentation. There are many issues that are unethical brought up in a variety of experiments. There are better ways to experiment; one being Ethics consultations, another being the use of alternatives within experiments, and lastly the use of natural experiments as compared to random controlled experiments. Over hundreds of years, scientists conducted experiments to innovate and try new things. Some experiments including innovation need the use of test subjects to know if it’ll work. Scientists will then go for an easy subject to test on. In past years scientists will use poor African Americans as their subjects because they felt as if they were invaluable. This was shown in a Tuskegee study where they tested syphilis on African Americans because they were “disposable”. There are many rats in the world and they create easy test subjects because nobody will technically miss them since there are so many. Many controlled experiments use rats as test subjects and they mutate these living animals for their own scientific gain and innovation. The issues wrong with these types of experiments that use living things as test subjects are barely talked about in the real world. This makes some scientists feel that they could still continue along with these types of experiments when there are many safer options in preventing hurting any living thing. Research has been done on different unethical experiments where scientists used monkeys as shown in a study called “Silver Spring Monkey” or poor African Americans as test subjects as shown in a “Tuskegee Study”. We believe the testing on these specific subjects is unethical, they prey on their mind and what they believe are weak links and put these living things in conditions where they are treated like something less than their actual value. They subject them to harmful experiments just to retrieve data and results.
There are ways to prevent unethical issues from even existing or being brought up in an experiment. There are also safer options and safer subjects to test on without hurting a living thing. A way in preventing unethical issues from occurring is the bringing of research ethics consultation. (McCormick, et al. 2009).” establishes this idea by stating “Approximately half of the researchers surveyed reported that they would find a research ethics consultation at their institution moderately very or extremely useful.” These consultations will brief scientists looking to conduct an experiment on the unethical line they shouldn’t cross and what they should prevent doing in their next experiment as it will help reduce harm to others. Scientists are open to the use of these consultations making it thus more effective.
Another way to take ethical considerations before conducting experiments is the use of alternatives to make something safer while being tested. In a Brazilian teaching laboratory, they use alternatives to mimic specific substances they’ll need in their experiment without having to use a living outside subject. (Castro, et al. 2004). Introduces this idea by stating “Ethical considerations lead us to create an alternative experimental session to be conducted that eliminates the use of rats” The use of alternatives can in turn make experiments become safer without having to harm any living thing. In this case, they used alternatives to prevent harm to rats. Rats are the most commonly used test subjects in today’s science experiments but they are also living animals so having and using an alternative to prevent harm to rats will help prevent unethical issues in these types of experiments.
The use of natural experiments compared to controlled randomized experiments is less risky and harmful. Natural experiments do have some ethical issues but when compared to a randomized experiment they are way safer. (Dawson et al. 2015) discusses this idea when stating “ethical issues that may arise within natural experiments in relation to risks of harm or informed consent may differ from those within the randomized controlled trial, they are not thereby less pressing.” What is meant by this statement is if a scientist would like to conduct an experiment the safer way is to go with a natural experiment, these types of experiments provide many safer substitutes rather than what a controlled trial can provide.
Methodology
The first study “Biomedical Scientists’ Perceptions of Ethical and Social Implications: Is There a Role for Research Ethics Consultation?”(2009) was conducted to address the ethical, social, and policy concerns of biomedical researchers. Their main objective was to examine if these biomedical researchers and their institutions have faced ethical issues and if they had the willingness to discuss and seek advice about these issues to prove the need for consultation among other biomedical researchers. To conduct their research, McCormick et al., conducted interviews through telephones and focus groups in 2006 with researchers from Stanford University and mailed surveys in December 2006 to 7 research universities in the U.S. A total of 16 researchers were interviewed (75% response rate), 29 participated in focus groups, and 856 responded to the survey (50% response rate. Approximately half of the researchers surveyed (51%) reported that they would find a research ethics consultation service at their institution moderately, very, or extremely useful, while over a third (36%) reported that such a service would be useful to them personally.
Secondly, this study, “Solving an ethical issue involved in experimentation with animals in a Brazilian teaching laboratory”(2006) provides an alternative strategy to use instead of animals called Guarurine. Guarurine was created because the students and faculty saw the use of animals to experiment in these universities as unethical. This led Natália et al., to eliminate the use of rats, which were used for learning glycogen metabolism in their university. Guarurine was also created to avoid possible biosafety issues in their laboratory. Using guaranine, they were able to verify positive results by imitating diabetic and starving people samples for the detection of glucose and ketone. When preparing Guarurine, Natalia et al., use a 150-ml cup of diet guarana that was diluted twice with distilled and deionized water, and three samples of 100 ml were obtained, which they named guarurines. The first sample was prepared to resemble diabetic urine by adding 5% w/v glucose and 10% v/v acetone. The second sample replicated urine from a person suffering from prolonged diarrhea and vomiting by adding only 10% v/v acetone. The third sample, representing normal urine, had no glucose or acetone added. These samples were utilized for urine diagnostic assays such as the detection of glucose by the classic Benedict’s copper reduction reaction and of acetoacetic acid by the reaction with sodium nitroprusside in a strongly basic medium. The Guarurine samples were able to resist several weeks out of the fridge, unlike normal urine, probably due to the presence of preservatives in its formula. They then used the guaranine samples to detect glucose and ketone. In the first steps to determine glucose, in the glass tubes, 3 ml of Benedict’s reagent was added to 5 ml of the guaranine samples. The test tubes were immediately placed into a beaker of boiling water and left for 3 min. When heated with Benedict’s reagent, the guaranine sample containing glucose (sample 1) formed an orange-brown precipitate similar to the diabetic urine. For ketone, Two drops of sodium nitroprusside reagent were added to 5 ml of the guaranine samples in a glass tube. The test tube was mixed and tilted to about a 30° angle, and the samples were slowly overlaid with 15% ammonium hydroxide. A pink ring appeared at the junction of the two liquids in the guaranine samples containing acetone (samples 1 and 2) after 15 min, similar to that observed for starving and diabetic people’s urine. Therefore, guaranine samples showed to be adequate as a harmless substitute for human urine to be used in the “Urinalysis” session, because they act similarly to the respective human samples.
Last but not least, the third research study, “The Nature and ethics of natural experiments”(2015), focuses on the ethical considerations and categorization of various types of natural experiments. Dawson and Sim presented a taxonomy of natural experiments and the associated methodologies to challenge the UK Medical Research Council’s publication on the significance of natural experiments in medical and public health research. They introduced two main types of natural experiments: Type 1 (no control) and Type 2 (partial control). In Type 1 (no control) natural experiments, the researcher has limited control over the intervention being studied. For instance, when studying the impact of an earthquake or an epidemic, the researcher cannot control where and when it occurs or whom it affects. On the other hand, Type 2 (partial control) natural experiments allow the researcher to exert some control over the intervention. For example, in the field of public health, a researcher might study the effects of a health promotion initiative or a new vaccination method. While the decision to implement such measures is not within the researcher’s control, they may collaborate with relevant authorities to roll out the program sequentially in different regions, creating a control condition, or delaying its initiation until a specific date to obtain comparative baseline data.
Data & Results
In this study “Solving an ethical issue involved in experimentation with animals in a Brazilian teaching laboratory” they gave six students unlabeled urine from three different people. A diabetic, a starving, and a healthy person. The point was to identify all three samples to the correct person. After it was finished an interview was done and it revealed that all six students were liking more the idea of using a body fluid to conduct research. It seemed safer, more comfortable, and more biofriendly. The study proved to show that there are more ethical ways of conducting research. After they also tested a total of 206 students from different undergraduate courses such as: “Biological Science,” “Pharmacy,” “Medicine,” “Veterinary Medicine,” “Nutrition,” “Odontology,” “Chemistry,” and “Industrial Chemistry”. They used the first six that took the test to help them with the new students. After they did a questionnaire about how the experience and four more important questions. The students had a 51% good and 49% very good acceptance for it because they all found it interesting. 10-20% of the students asked for their own urine to be tested but it was not allowed. “Odontology” students did not agree (38%) or partially agree (31%) that the knowledge offered by this practical session will be useful in their professional careers. The data again that there are more ethical ways to conduct research. Here they used body fluids to be able to conduct research and it proved to able be successful.
The aim of this experiment “Biomedical Scientists’ Perceptions of Ethical and Social Implications: Is There a Role for Research Ethics Consultation?” was to conduct a survey so people from different medical fields could discuss the role or the lack of awareness in ethics in science. They conducted a survey between 16-20 people during May and June. They conducted focus groups in their survey for five weeks in the months of September and August. After this pilot experiment, they sent the survey to 2000 people. They were able to contact 1707 individuals and out of that half responded. Some were graduates but all consisted of people that worked in the medical field. The point was to be able to see how these different people used to be able to do research. After they conducted another survey to see if they knew about the ethical part of their experiments. Therefore, the tables show that there is a low level of knowledge when it comes to ethics in science. The graduates that took the survey answered questions that they give to them based on how they researched.
| Characteristics Percent of survey respondents |
| N (%) |
| Position |
| Faculty 282 (34%) |
| Research staff 132 (16%) |
| Postdoctoral fellow 183 (22%) |
| Graduate student 223 (27%) |
| Type of research |
| Uses human subjects 280 (33%) |
| Uses vertebrate animals 330 (42%) |
| Uses hESC 21 (3%) |
| Basic research 685 (83%) |
| Clinical research 164 (20%) |
| Translational research 164 (20%) |
| Applied research 212 (26%) |
| Institutional characteristics |
| With medical school 583 (71%) |
| With bioethics presence 376 (46%) |
| Totals, N (%) Not at all, N (%) Slightly, N (%) Moderately, N (%) Very, N (%) Extremely, N (%) | 814 (100%) 68 (8%) 330 (41%) 311 (38%) 93 (11%) 12 (2%) | 269 (100%) 14 (5%) 93 (35%) 111 (41%) 43 (16%) 8 (3%) | 544 (100%) 54 (10%) 237 (44%) 199 (37%) 50 (9%) 4 (1%) | 831 (100%) 178 (21%) 333 (40%) 203 (24%) 97 (12%) 20 (2%) | 273 (100%) 35 (13%) 97 (36%) 85 (31%) 42 (15%) 14 (5%) | 557 (100%) 143 (26%) 236 (42%) 118 (42%) 54 (10%) 6 (1%) | ||
| Question Categories | How useful would researchers at your institution find a research ethics consultation service? | Total | Human subjects researchers | Nonhuman subjects researchers | How useful would you personally find a research ethics consultation service? | Total | Human subjects researchers | Nonhuman subjects researchers |
Discussion & Conclusion
The data suggested that Research has been done on different unethical experiments where scientists used animals and poor African Americans as test subjects. Doing research on weak people or animals is unethical but researchers always choose them for their research over the years and they do not regret it at all.
McCormick et al.,2009 were conducted to address the ethical, social, and policy concerns of biomedical researchers. Their main objective was to examine if these biomedical researchers and their institutions have faced ethical issues and if they had the willingness to discuss and seek advice about these issues to prove the need for consultation among other biomedical researchers. This research concluded that there are ways to prevent unethical issues from occurring, this being one useful valid way. Approximately half of the researchers surveyed (51%) reported that they would find a research ethics consultation service at their institution moderately, very, or extremely useful, while over a third (36%) reported that such a service would be useful to them personally. (McCormick et al.,2009). The research results showed that most people support ethics in research.
There was an experiment to conduct a survey so people from different medical fields could discuss the role or the lack of awareness of ethics in science. They conducted a survey between 16-20 people during May and June. They conducted focus groups in their survey for five weeks in September and August. After this pilot experiment, they sent the survey to 2000 people. They were able to contact 1707 individuals and out of that half responded. Some were graduates but all consisted of people that worked in the medical field. It showed that there is low knowledge when it comes to ethics in science. Data from the study suggest that some of the researchers had trouble recognizing social and ethical issues and that some felt the scientists themselves could handle social and ethical concerns that arise, along the lines that the scientific community can regulate itself. Such barriers are explored using a research ethics consultation service and even thinking about ethical, societal, and policy implications in general elsewhere.
Natalia et al. made a study that provides an alternative approach to use instead of using animals. It was conducted because the use of animals to experiment in these universities was seen as unethical by the students and faculty. They developed an alternative sample to simulate human urine. The experimental session to be conducted eliminated the use of rats, the conventional in vivo model used for learning the metabolism of glycogen due to ethical reasons. The alternative subject they developed is called Guaranine. It was created to avoid possible biosafety issues. Using their new method, it was then possible to verify positive results imitating diabetic and starving people samples for the detection of glucose and ketone. Therefore, guaranine samples were shown to be adequate as a harmless substitute for human urine to be used in the “Urinalysis” session, because they act like the respective human samples.
As these required changes take place, academic professors’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes will need to change, as well as the way that learning is facilitated, and instruction is carried out. This lab experiment can be used in any biochemistry course without losing any ethical or biosafety concerns. The students could learn not only about biochemistry but also about specific issues related to handling of the samples and reagents, as well as how clinical results are obtained and interpreted, through the proper application of our established alternative tool and comprehension of the technical and clinical details of this practical session. This practical lesson also has the benefits of being quick, generally safe, and inexpensive, requiring fewer resources to imitate clinical scenarios.
The use of natural experiments compared to controlled randomized experiments is less risky and harmful. Natural experiments do have some ethical issues but when compared to a randomized experiment they are way safer. (Dawson et al. 2015) discusses this idea when stating “Ethical issues that may arise within natural experiments in relation to risks of harm or informed consent may differ from those within the randomized controlled trial, they are not thereby less pressing.” What is meant by this statement is if a scientist would like to conduct an experiment the safer way is to go with a natural experiment, these types of experiments provide many safer substitutes rather than what a controlled trial can provide. Overall, natural experiments can replace unethical experiments.
Overall, unethical experiments can cause damage to humans and animals but there are certain ways to prevent unethical experiments. Many researchers use African Americans and poor animals for their trials which is unethical. Approximately half of the researchers surveyed reported that they would find a research ethics consultation service at their institution moderately, very, or extremely useful, while over a third reported that such a service would be useful to them personally. This can vividly explain the perspective of researchers on unethical experiments has changed recently. Moreover, developing an alternative sample to simulate human urine has eliminated the use of rats, which is one of the steps to end unethical experiments. These findings also imply whether ethical experiments should be used for more efficient ways of experimenting without imposing the sufferings of poor people and animals. In conclusion, constant unethical experiments negatively impact weak and poor people as well as animals and luckily there are better ways to experiment; one being Ethics consultations, another being the use of alternatives within experiments, and lastly the use of natural experiments as compared to random controlled experiments.
References
McCormick, J. B., Boyce, A. M., & Cho, M. K. (n.d.). Biomedical Scientists’ Perceptions of Ethical and Social Implications: Is There a Role for Research Ethics Consultation? Shibboleth authentication request. https://web-s-ebscohost-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=b4b1984c-dee6-48b4-87a4-96f37b8864e0%40redis
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education – Wiley Online Library. (2019). Wiley.com.https://iubmb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15393429
Shibboleth Authentication Request. (n.d.). Login.ccny-Proxy1.Libr.ccny.cuny.edu. Retrieved May 20, 2023, fromhttps://jme-bmj-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/content/medethics/41/10/848.full.pdf
