Skip to main content
Log in

Unethical human research in the field of neuroscience: a historical review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Neurological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding the historical foundations of ethics in human research are key to illuminating future human research and clinical trials. This paper gives an overview of the most remarkable unethical human research and how past misconducts helped develop ethical guidelines on human experimentation such as The Nuremberg Code 1947 following WWII. Unethical research in the field of neuroscience also proved to be incredibly distressing. Participants were often left with life-long cognitive disabilities. This emphasizes the importance of implicating strict rules and ethical guidelines in neuroscience research that protect participants and respects their dignity. The experiments conducted by German Nazi in the concentration camps during WWII are probably the most inhumane and brutal ever conducted. The Nuremberg Code of 1947, one of the few positive outcomes of the Nazi experiments, is often considered the first document to set out ethical regulations of human research. It consists of numerous necessary criteria, to highlight a few, the subject must give informed consent, there must be a concrete scientific basis for the experiment, and the experiment should yield positive results that cannot be obtained in any other way. In the end, we must remember, the interest of the patient must always prevail over the interest of science or society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nardini C (2014) The ethics of clinical trials. Ecancermedicalscience 8:387

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Glenn Forister J, Dennis Blessing J (2015) Introduction to research and medical literature for health professionals. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  3. NIH Clinical Center: Ethics in Clinical Research. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/recruit/ethics.html

  4. Illes J, Bird SJ (2006) Neuroethics: a modern context for ethics in neuroscience. Trends Neurosci 29(9):511–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2006.07.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Silverman F (1988) The “monster” study. J Fluen Disord 13(3):225–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-730X(88)90049-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html

  7. Thomas SB, Quinn SC (1991) The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the black community. Am J Public Health 81(11):1498–1505. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.81.11.1498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Brandt AM (1978) Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hast Cent Rep 8(6):21–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3561468

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Korda A The Nazi medical experiments. ADF Health [online]. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at: http://www.defence.gov.au/health/infocentre/journals/adfhj_apr06/adfhealth_7_1_33-37.html

  10. The 30 most disturbing human experiments in history. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at http://www.bestpsychologydegrees.com/30-most-disturbing-human-experiments-in-history/

  11. Strous RD, Edelman MC (2007) Eponyms and the Nazi era: time to remember and time for change. Isr Med Assoc J 9(3):207–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Laud Humphreys and the Tearoom Sex Study. Retrieved 24 August 2017. Available at http://www.drjkoch.org/Intro/Readings/Humphreys.htm

  13. Harris B (1979) Whatever happened to little Albert? Am Psychol 34(2):151–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.2.151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, Pistrang N, Sanchez-Vives MV (2006) A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS One 1(1):e39. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Schell BH (1994) The ominous shadow of the CIA has imprinted itself on the brain research community. J Calif Alliance Ment Ill 5(1):38–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson ST, Stanley B (2006) Ethical concerns in schizophrenia research: looking back and moving forward. Schizophr Bull 32(1):30–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbj023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hussein Algahtani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Algahtani, H., Bajunaid, M. & Shirah, B. Unethical human research in the field of neuroscience: a historical review. Neurol Sci 39, 829–834 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-018-3245-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-018-3245-1

Keywords

Navigation