Effects on Researchers Today
Due to the many issues that came up in this study, researchers now have a strict set of guidelines to follow. Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46, Subsection 46.305(2)-Attachment 18 lays out a set of prerequisites of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for prison experiments. For prisons to receive Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval at the present time, experiments must meet the following five conditions:
Any incentives given to participants must not be so great that they would have a significant effect on a prisoner’s assessment of the risks of the research, the risks are no greater than the risk that would be assumed by a participant that is not a prisoner, the procedures and methods used to select participants in the study are fair; the information pertaining to the study must be presented in a language that is understandable to the population being studied, the participants must be informed of and understand that the parole board will not give any special consideration for participation, and necessary follow-up care will be provided(45 CFR ,1991).
Results of Exposure
In 1974 the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare developed a National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Behavioral and Biomedical Research. Under this commission any institution receiving federal funds was required to have a board review all research projects individually to confirm that human subjects were being treated ethically. The boards created to review these processes are what we now call Institutional Review Boards(IRBs).
President Bill Clinton established a Human Radiation Interagency Working Group in 1994. The group consisted of Secretaries of Defense, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Energy, and the Attorney General to name a few. In the same year, Clinton also created the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. This committee was formed to look into the growing number of government-sponsored experiments involving human radiation exposure. This committee consisted of 14 members which included experts tin the fields of science, nuclear medicine, law, radiation, public health, and statistics. The committee’s main purpose was to examine the morality of the actions and policies concerning human radiation experiments. They were also charged with the responsibility of examining the protections of the existing practices to ensure that they would be able to protect future subjects from abuse(Experiments,1994). After reviewing over 4,000 of the U.S. radiation test undertaken from 1944-1974, the committee found many to be well-intended and some even groundbreaking; however, in the case of the Oregon State Prison Study, they found that the subjects were coerced and not fully warned of the risks (Anderson, 2000).
Could This Study be Conducted Ethically?
Revising this study to make it ethical is almost impossible. The Intentional exposing of human beings to radiation presents unpredictable outcomes including side effects known and unknown. The risks were much too high for a minimal benefit to human kind. This type of experiment would be unethical on any population, let alone a special population like prisoners. Although the prisoners were paid for their participation in this study, the amount was in no way equal to the risk that they assumed. If the prisoners who participated in this study had an extensive understanding of the long term effects of radiation, they would not have given informed consent. The Oregon State Prison Study did more for research regulations than it did for radiation research. Due to its poor selection processes, lack of informed consent, and its overall risk to the safety of participants, the rules on experimental studies on prison populations had to be revised. With the current regulations and the five conditions that must be met, this kind of study would never be approved today.
(n.d, 2014)
Effects on Researchers Today
Due to the many issues that came up in this study, researchers now have a strict set of guidelines to follow. Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46, Subsection 46.305(2)-Attachment 18 lays out a set of prerequisites of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for prison experiments. For prisons to receive Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval at the present time, experiments must meet the following five conditions:
Any incentives given to participants must not be so great that they would have a significant effect on a prisoner’s assessment of the risks of the research, the risks are no greater than the risk that would be assumed by a participant that is not a prisoner, the procedures and methods used to select participants in the study are fair; the information pertaining to the study must be presented in a language that is understandable to the population being studied, the participants must be informed of and understand that the parole board will not give any special consideration for participation, and necessary follow-up care will be provided(45 CFR ,1991).
Results of Exposure
In 1974 the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare developed a National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Behavioral and Biomedical Research. Under this commission any institution receiving federal funds was required to have a board review all research projects individually to confirm that human subjects were being treated ethically. The boards created to review these processes are what we now call Institutional Review Boards(IRBs).
President Bill Clinton established a Human Radiation Interagency Working Group in 1994. The group consisted of Secretaries of Defense, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Energy, and the Attorney General to name a few. In the same year, Clinton also created the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. This committee was formed to look into the growing number of government-sponsored experiments involving human radiation exposure. This committee consisted of 14 members which included experts tin the fields of science, nuclear medicine, law, radiation, public health, and statistics. The committee’s main purpose was to examine the morality of the actions and policies concerning human radiation experiments. They were also charged with the responsibility of examining the protections of the existing practices to ensure that they would be able to protect future subjects from abuse(Experiments,1994). After reviewing over 4,000 of the U.S. radiation test undertaken from 1944-1974, the committee found many to be well-intended and some even groundbreaking; however, in the case of the Oregon State Prison Study, they found that the subjects were coerced and not fully warned of the risks (Anderson, 2000).
Could This Study be Conducted Ethically?
Revising this study to make it ethical is almost impossible. The Intentional exposing of human beings to radiation presents unpredictable outcomes including side effects known and unknown. The risks were much too high for a minimal benefit to human kind. This type of experiment would be unethical on any population, let alone a special population like prisoners. Although the prisoners were paid for their participation in this study, the amount was in no way equal to the risk that they assumed. If the prisoners who participated in this study had an extensive understanding of the long term effects of radiation, they would not have given informed consent. The Oregon State Prison Study did more for research regulations than it did for radiation research. Due to its poor selection processes, lack of informed consent, and its overall risk to the safety of participants, the rules on experimental studies on prison populations had to be revised. With the current regulations and the five conditions that must be met, this kind of study would never be approved today.