IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2015.302720_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The rationalization of unethical research: Revisionist accounts of the Tuskegee syphilis study and the New Zealand "unfortunate experiment"

Author

Listed:
  • Paul, C.
  • Brookes, B.

Abstract

Two studies, widely condemned in the 1970s and 1980s?the Tuskegee study ofmenwith untreated syphilis and the New Zealand study of women with untreated carcinoma in situ of the cervix?received newdefenses in the 21st century. Wenotedremarkablesimilarities in both the studies and their defenses. Here we evaluate the scientific, political, and moral claims of the defenders. The scientific claims are largely based on incomplete or misinterpreted evidence and exaggeration of the uncertainties of science. The defenders' political arguments mistakenly claim that identity politics clouded the original critiques; in fact such politics opened the eyes of thepublic to exploitation.The moral defenses demonstrate an overreliance on codes of conductandhaveimplications for research ethics today.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul, C. & Brookes, B., 2015. "The rationalization of unethical research: Revisionist accounts of the Tuskegee syphilis study and the New Zealand "unfortunate experiment"," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(10), pages 12-19.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2015.302720_4
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302720
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302720?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2015.302720_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.