>Let’s assume instead they used a harmless chemical tracer. Would that still count as a violation? What about releasing flour through ducts?
Would the IRB let me do those things to people without their informed consent?
I very much doubt it.
Would the IRB let me do those things to people without their informed consent?
I very much doubt it.
I'm not saying we should celebrate this research, but ... we already learned the lesson about being careful with human experimentation? If there's a more recent study that circumvented the IRB or that the IRB okayed despite obvious problems, there's an interesting discussion to have there.
But I'm more in the camp above, that this pre-IRB study wasn't particularly egregious, at least by the scale of atrocities of early 20th century research.
An article talking about the ins and outs of IRB process approval would be much more informative, or going into detail about what is and is not ethical.
False or at best misleading statements of pathogenic biological tests on people bring us no nearer to actually talking intelligently about the issues or making better decisions.
“ They wrote that clouds engulfed people as trains pulled away, but that they "brushed their clothing, looked up at the grating apron and walked on." No one was concerned.
Army scientists concluded that it took between four and 13 minutes for train passengers to be exposed to the bacteria.”
If they put the bacteria in the system with no human interaction I’m sure the study would be much less valuable.
Nothing was about human-to-human transmission. This wasn't about contagion at all.
I'm not defending the study in any way but at least let's get our facts right.
I question, did you even read the article?