Search

Bioethics is often thought of as having been "born in scandal and raised in protectionism." Less often acknowledged is that bioethics has been so nourished by melodramatic frames that the effort to provide a different form of analysis has been problematic. Using examples of the author's scholarship on the history and coverage of the United States Public Health Service's untreated syphilis study in Tuskegee (1932-72) and its sexually transmitted diseases inoculation research studies in Guatemala (1946-48), these histories of medical malfeasance, governmental over-reach, and the use of racist and imperial power are examined for the limitations of emotional understandings of "bad scientists" and failures to obtain consent. It is argued that these two tragedies, which have provided an explanation for suspicion of medical and public health research, need to be understood in the context of research hubris and institutional power. They remind us of the necessity for protection of human rights against dangerous excesses of zeal in human research, and the need for researchers to imagine themselves in similar situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the infamous research studies in Tuskegee and Guatemala, the article examines the difference between victims and bystanders. The victims can include families, sexual partners, and children not just the participants. There are also the bystanders in the populations who are affected, even vaguely, decades after the initial studies took place. Differing reparations for victims and bystanders through lawsuits and historical acknowledgments has to be part of broader discussions of historical justice, and the weighing of the impact of racism and imperial research endeavors., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The Sexually Transmitted Disease Inoculation Study of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) was a short-term deliberate exposure experiment into the prevention of venereal diseases. Between 1946 and 1948, over 1,300 Guatemalan prisoners, psychiatric patients, soldiers, and sex workers were exposed to syphilis, gonorrhoea, and chancroid. USPHS researchers initially proposed hiring sex workers to "naturally" transmit venereal diseases to male subjects who would then be given various prophylaxes. The researchers were interested in studying the effectiveness of new preventative measures. In other words, the USPHS study was designed to transmit venereal diseases heterosexually from an "infected" female body to the men who, it was assumed, were sexually isolated subjects. However, the researchers did record instances of male-to-male disease transmission among their subject populations, instances that challenged the presumption of heterosexuality on which the study was based.

Debates on human experiments in developing countries focus on ethical principles such as informed consent, accountability, involvement of the concerned communities, and the improvement of local health services. Public health specialists who conducted human experiments in Rio de Janeiro (1902-1905) and in Guatemala (1947-1948) believed, however, that they were acting in the best interests of local populations, were aware of the importance of informed consent, were closely collaborating with local health professionals, and were contributing to the development of local health structures. Nevertheless, their investigations went dramatically wrong. An initial desire to conduct ethically and scientifically sound studies was undermined by pressure to obtain results and to save the researchers' initial investment, the possibility of freely using hospitalized patients as experimental participants, uncritical help from local professional elites, and structural pitfalls of experimenting with severely deprived people. These elements can still be found in trials of preventive methods in the Global South.