Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gender and sexuality research
Gender and sexuality research
Issues of sexuality paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gender and sexuality research
It is just not right
“Who got crucified and made you God? You maniac” (Caswell, 1992, p. 149). This quote is at the heart of A Cage of Butterflies, a novel written by Brian Caswell. It makes people think about what is happening in the book to make someone explode like this. The novel is Caswell’s opinion on scientific research performed on humans is clearly displayed. Caswell is very clear with his opinions about the injustices that occur and because Larsen, the antagonist, is the major cause of most of the injustices, a heroine emerges, Susan Grace, a defender of the children. Susan’s involvement is essential to the story because without her Larsen would have continued to exploit the children’s wellbeing and only focus on the fame and fortune of his research. Caswell’s major points that he is trying to make about human injustice are at the forefront of this book.
…show more content…
Caswell’s opinion on scientific research performed on humans is the major reason for this novel.
One example is shown in an argument between Larsen and Susan, “I won’t let you do it! Is your bloody career so important that you’d risk their lives?” Larsen replies with, “...This is my project. They’re my subjects…” (Caswell, 1992, p. 149). Larsen was treating the Babies quite inhumanely. His “treatment” was to dose them with Sodium Pentothal and observe and question them in their relaxed and truthful state. This experiment is considered cruel because Larsen drugged them against their will. In most cases consent would have to be given by the parents but because Larsen had taken them away from the parents he could do whatever he wanted to figure out their secrets, even going to the point of harm. The wrong doings of scientific research is at the heart of this novel, all the major plot points revolve around the fact that it is all an experiment to start with. Larsen’s inhumane treatment of the children is exactly the point Caswell is trying to get across to his
audience. Susan Grace is one of the many main protagonists in the narrative. She becomes the defender of the babies and the “think tank” kids. Susan’s drive is that she can see that Larsen is mistreating them and she decides to stop him in his tracks. Part of Susan’s resolve to help the kids is when she gets to know them, and they begin to trust her so they decide to bring down Larsen. Once Susan, Erik, the tank kids and the Babies have all come together to overthrow Larsen, Pep comes up with an idea, “… we must learn to … lead him on … to throw him a little … bait …” (Caswell, 1992, p. 93) They intend to play Larsen and send him off on a wild goose chase, which is exactly what they do. By the end of the novel Larsen is pretty much pulling his hair out because of the false leads they had been giving him. The reason Caswell wrote Susan into the story was so there would be someone to battle Larsen. By the end of the novel Larsen had become quite obsessed with his research. The only thing that was keeping him sane was the thought that his research could be ground breaking, not to mention the fame it would bring him. Larsen’s thoughts tell the readers how he thinks the babies ability will go down in history, “They would name the discovery after the discoverer. Larsen’s Syndrome. It had a nice ring to it” (Caswell, 1992, p. 39). This thought process shows Larsen’s character, a man who is so focused on his work that he did not see what was going on around him and he did not care about anything but his research. Larsen’s drive for his research meant absolutely nothing could get in his way. This negligence is what Caswell was trying to make a point of. Caswell believed that scientific research is something that needs constant and continuous care and is not something that is casually done. Larsen’s research was too important to him that he overlooked the fact that the care of his subjects is much more important than any fame or fortune. In conclusion, this novel is all about Caswell’s thoughts on scientific research on humans. Caswell’s guidelines are hidden throughout the story in clever ways in which Caswell writes. His novel has many points about the moral implications of scientific research on humans such as needing a protagonist to battle the antagonist, not worrying about what fame or fortune the discoveries might bring, and how society’s opinion on this subject needs to be altered. In the eyes of readers, this book displayed the ethical and principled ways to go about scientific research on people. He wants people to not see them as subjects or guinea pigs but as living, breathing people who have their whole life ahead filled with joy, love and life experiences. Caswell asked his audience to remember that people who are different from them are still humans too. Bibliography Caswell, B. (1992). A Cage of Butterflies. (1st ed.). QLD Australia: University of Queensland Press.
In Lauren Slater’s book Opening Skinner’s Box, the second chapter “Obscura” discusses Stanley Milgram, one of the most influential social psychologists. Milgram created an experiment which would show just how far one would go when obeying instructions from an authoritative figure, even if it meant harming another person while doing so. The purpose of this experiment was to find justifications for what the Nazi’s did during the Holocaust. However, the experiment showed much more than the sociological reasoning behind the acts of genocide. It showed just how much we humans are capable of.
In the 1930s there was no regulation to ensure that the participants were not fully informed of the science experiment nor possible life treating side effects. There was an investigation of Sleeping Sickness; men from a prison volunteered to be subjected on, yet they did not sign a consent form and they were not knowledgeable of the procedure nor protected from unnecessary risk. Closely following, the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment began to make progress in Alabama. The term "Bad Blood" was used by the government professionals to describe what they were trying to cure in these males, yet that term is euphemism and can be used in a broader sense; making it unclear, to the potential subjects, what the doctors were actually treating. Along with the questionable terms, there was not a consent form given to the
Those who were affected by the testing in hospitals, prisons, and mental health institutions were the patients/inmates as well as their families, Henrietta Lacks, the doctors performing the research and procedures, the actual institutions in which research was being held, and the human/health sciences field as a whole. Many ethical principles can be applied to these dilemmas: Reliance on Scientific Knowledge (1.01), Boundaries of Competence (1.02), Integrity (1.04), Professional and Scientific Relationships (1.05), Exploitative Relationships (1.07, a), Responsibility (2.02), Rights and Prerogatives of Clients (2.05), Maintaining Confidentiality (2.06), Maintaining Records (2.07), Disclosures (2.08), Treatment/Intervention Efficacy (2.09), Involving Clients in Planning and Consent (4.02), Promoting an Ethical Culture (7.01), Ethical Violations by Others and Risk of Harm (7.02), Avoiding False or Deceptive Statements (8.01), Conforming with Laws and Regulations (9.01), Characteristics of Responsible Research (9.02), Informed Consent (9.03), and Using Confidential Information for Didactic or Instructive Purposes (9.04), and Debriefing (9.05). These particular dilemmas were not really handled until much later when laws were passed that regulated the way human subjects could be used for research. Patients
The Asch and Milgram’s experiment were not unethical in their methods of not informing the participant of the details surrounding the experiment and the unwarranted stress; their experiment portrayed the circumstances of real life situation surrounding the issues of obedience to authority and social influence. In life, we are not given the courtesy of knowledge when we are being manipulated or influenced to act or think a certain way, let us be honest here because if we did know people were watching and judging us most of us would do exactly as society sees moral, while that may sound good in ensuring that we always do the right thing that would not be true to the ways of our reality. Therefore, by not telling the participants the detail of the experiment and inflicting unwarranted stress Asch and Milgram’s were
The story of Frankenstein written by Mary Shelley is revered as one of the greatest novels to be formulated. It takes the point of view of a scientist named ‘Victor Frankenstein’ who is fuelled by an insatiable thirst of expanding his knowledge. His interests draw to that of being able to give things life where he takes the seat of god feeling that he has the power to do all he envisions, which in the end destroys him. Almost 150 years later the book Flowers for Algernon written by Daniel Keyes and published in 1959, manages to recreate the conflict between science and ethics and the implications of ungoverned scientific experimentation. The book observes a young man named Charlie who has a mental disorder, he continuously seeks to “become smart” and is attending a special school to achieve his goal. While visiting this school he is
Therefore, he states he wants to “focus the paper on the arguments offered in support of the claim that these trials were unethical,” (302). The first criticism states,” injustice was done to the control group…second, the participants in the trial were coerced into participating…third, the countries in question were exploited,” (302). Against the first criticism, he argues that if the clinical trials were not conducted the participants would not have received proper treatment. For the second criticism, he states that coercion, “involves a threat to put someone below their baseline unless they cooperate with the demands of the person
“Ethical Issues of the Milgram Experiment.” Associated Content. Yahoo, 8 November 2008. Web. 12 October 2011.
Equipped with this knowledge the reader realises that even Elizabeth's comfortable, peaceful lifestyle is vulnerable and at risk. The Crucible and Birdsong, in their different ways, both highlight the complexity of human nature where love, loyalty and honesty co-exist with hatred, fear and suspicion. This means that even in times of conflict and slaughter people display the ability to love, trust and make sacrifices. However the greatest flaw in mankind's makeup is the ability to forget the horrors of the past, therefore allowing the continual repetition throughout history of the same, fatal mistakes.
Furthermore, these doctors had no legal or ethical codes to conduct experimentations or research on African Americans. For example, during 1998, “172 employees, all but one of them black, sued Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory when they learned that they had secretly been tested for syphilis, pregnancy, and sickle-cell trait without their knowledge that the blood and urine they had supplied during required physical examinations would be tested…” (314). This indicates that there was no consent from these blacks and scientists where secretively testing immunities for sickle-cell on them without any permission whatsoever. The release of this experiment was against the Americans with Disabilities Act and these researchers had no right to release information without the patient’s consent. Furthermore, experiments that had no patient’s consent varied from blisters “to see how deep black skin went” to threatening surgeries, sterilization, inoculations, and not tested pharmaceuticals (54). Without consent, all experiments are considered as unethical. A patient’s consent is important because it is huge determination of privacy and respecting the patient’s wishes. Without any consent, it is indicating that patient’s do not have rights about their own privacy, which was against the law during colonial times and in present days. Some ethical guidelines include the right to withdraw from the study
Deadly and helpful, science is a dual-edged sword. Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of the first to emphasize this through his literary works. “Rappaccini's Daughter” and “The Birthmark” are two of his works where he teaches this lesson through the trials of his characters. Focusing on the motif of the “mad scientist”, Hawthorne brings to light the points that people struggle with humanity, learning to love themselves and others, and that science can be more harmful then helpful.
Everyday people are judged based on their appearance. We need to learn to look beyond a person’s physical image. In the young adult fiction piece If You Come Softly by Jacqueline Woodson, the memoir The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls, and the realistic fiction novel The Silver Star by Jeannette Walls, the authors illustrate how individuals face prejudice based on their appearance, race, gender, and social class.
A devoted mother, Anne Bradstreet is concerned with her children as she watches them grow up. “Or lest by Lime-twigs they be foil'd, or by some greedy hawks be spoil'd” Anne Bradstreet uses to describe her fear for her children. Not wanting to see her children suffer, Anne Bradstreet turns to God to help her children. Bradstreet imagines her bird’s being stuck on a branch and a hawk eating them, a grim image of all of her sacrifice being lost in a single moment. “No cost nor labour did I spare” describes how much Anne loves her children.
According to APA’s guidelines, John Watson’s “Little Albert” study would not be allowed today because of ethical violations. One ethical violation is the lack of consent from the subject. Little Albert could never give consent because he was an infant. Watson took advantage of the fact that Albert could not tell people that he wanted to withdraw from the study. Participants should always know what the study will involve and what risks might develop.
Science, in this particular story, is represented by Aylmer who thinks of himself as a great scientist. He conducts a scientific experiment in the need to remove his wife’s birthmark. He tries everything he knows to create a magical potion to remove Georgiana’s flaw. Georgiana on the other hand represents nature. Georgiana represents the closest state to perfection that man can aspire to, but her husband is still not content. Feeling that it will be the only possible way to save her marriage, she gives in and tells him to prepare the experiment. In the need to impress her husband, she allows him to experiment with the removal of her birthmark regardless of the risk, or the consequence she might face. In this story, the power of nature prevails in the end. Even though Georgiana is unable to impress her husband with her unique mark, her birthmark captivates almost anyone who looks at it. In the desire to control nature, Aylmer kills his wife. The fate of the world, no matter how dark it is, is in the hands of nature, not science or man. Instead of trying to pursue the ultimate power and trying to change the laws of nature through science, one should pursue happiness in
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest” Ellie Wiesel. Readers may find the amount of injustice in Harper lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird a little shocking. This could be why it’s such a popular book. People like the suspense of knowing someone’s right, but still being found guilty for something they did not do. There are many times throughout the book when people are powerless to prevent injustice but they still protest it. This shows that even when people unjustly punish there should always be someone to protest it. The theme of injustice is a common one in harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, whether it be through racism, misinformation, or Arrogance.